May 10, 2023
By Annie Levanaj The recent decision of the Court in Delanty v. Hogan, 2023 ONSC 2501, demonstrates that parties are expected to move actions forward and respond promptly when dealing with reconsiderations of WSIAT decisions. Background This decision arose from a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiffs were Ms. Delanty, a pedestrian hit by a truck […]
March 24, 2023
At our weekly Friday meeting, Katrina Taibi discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court in Li v. Barber, 2023 ONSC 1679. Overview: A motion by the plaintiffs to amend the Statement of Claim, and a motion by a group of defendants to strike the Statement of Claim for no cause of action and […]
March 22, 2023
By Michael Kryworuk In Shillington v. Stover, 2023 ONSC 1463, Regional Senior Justice C. Macleod considered a motion by one of the defendants, Million Dollar Round Table (“MRDT”), to strike the statement of claim against it as disclosing no cause of action under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. History of the Litigation: […]
March 15, 2023
By Michael Brown An endorsement from a recent motion held in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice before McGraw AJ has provided an interesting look at the use of misnomers in pleadings and the doctrine of discoverability as it relates to unidentifiable parties. In Abramov v. Doe,[1] the Plaintiff brought a motion for leave to […]
January 25, 2023
By Amanda Colarossi Overview The Rules of Civil Procedure often change. Sometimes they change in minor ways, and sometimes major ways. Rule 48.04 underwent a small but important change by amendment in July 2021. A party not setting a matter down for trial can now consent to the matter being placed on the trial list, […]
January 20, 2023
At our weekly Friday meeting, Nasra Esak discussed the recent Court of Appeal decision of Ontario v. Madan, 2023 ONCA 18. The Court of Appeal upheld a motion judge’s decision to strike contested paragraphs of the appellants’ statements of defence counterclaims, which alleged that the Government of Ontario was vicariously liable and contributorily negligent for […]
