Two lawyers from ESB Lawyers will be part of the 13th Annual Current Issues in Commercial Litigation Law Seminar, which will take place at the Sheraton Hotel Hamilton on February 21st. Michael Bordin will make a presentation on What's New from the Supreme Court and John Kranjc will take part[...]
Congratulations to Sandra Stephenson who has received nominations for the YWCA Hamilton 2018 Women of Distinction Awards in two categories - Community Leadership and Lifetime Achievement.
The awards, which recognize the achievement of women in Hamilton, will be handed out at Hamilton Convention Centre on Thursday, March 8th.[...]
Michael Bordin will be a part of the Fifth Annual HLA Advocacy Skills Workshop taking place at the Hamilton Courthouse on February 1st. Michael will speak to those attending about the Top Trial Mistakes, as well as taking part in a panel discussion called the Advocates Almanac.[...]
If you knew as little as I do about web site function, you should be nervous because you are at the back of a terribly long line. So how you found this note reflects search gifts hidden behind mysterious keys for me. Well done.
I plan to write regularly about the decisions and the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Canada when those insightful judges speak out about issues and ideas which have influence on the business interests and personal interplay of Canadians. Less probable topics are the justice disputes about and affecting a relatively narrow interest. I know – you can hardly wait.
A development surfacing has seen the Court granting leave and pronouncing on transactional legal issues. Appointed in 2014 from a distinguished Montreal advocacy practice, Justice Suzanne Côté is writing extensively on business issues where the Court has perceived a need to better the law. In mid-November Justice Côté released reasons on a mortgage issue.
Everybody has a mortgage. A few are the lenders. Most though are borrowers. In order to pay off a mortgage what you need from the lender mortgagee is an accounting – a statement setting out exactly how much is owed. Usually that is not[…]
On September 6, 2014, Ontario Regulation 170/14 was gazetted. It contains a number of significant amendments to the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure that all counsel practicing civil litigation in this province need to know.
Dismissal of Action for Delay—effective January 1, 2015
The current Rules 48.14 (Action Not On Trial List) and 48.15 (Action Abandoned) have been revoked. This is a major change to the Rules with respect to administrative dismissals, directly aimed at improving the efficient use of judicial resources.
In their place, a new Rule 48.14 is enacted. Actions will now be dismissed by the Registrar if not set down for trial by the later of the fifth anniversary of their commencement and January 1, 2017, or, if struck off the trial list and not restored by the later of the second anniversary of being struck off the list and January 1, 2017 [r.48.14(1)].
A key point is that such dismissal for delay will occur without any prior status notice to counsel or the parties. Instead, a dismissal order (Form 48D) will be sent to counsel after the fact. Counsel are made subject to a duty to promptly provide a copy of the dismissal order to the client. (No timeframe for[…]
As a result of the new Limitations Act in Ontario, the only way to add a party to an action after the expiry of the limitation period is by using the doctrine of misnomer. The Act requires parties to commence actions within the limitation periods and a failure to do so can be fatal to a claim. The doctrine of misnomer can preserve a litigant’s claim in the event of errors in naming a party at an early stage in the litigation.
In the recent decision of Casselman v. Casselman (2014 ONSC 1267), Justice Tucker used the doctrine of misnomer to add a party to a claim after the expiry of the limitation period.
In Casselman, the Plaintiff was injured when the car in which she was a passenger was struck by an unidentified vehicle. The driver of the vehicle in which the Plaintiff was a passenger was insured by Economical, which was liable for injury and damage caused by unidentified vehicles up to a maximum of $200,000.00. The Plaintiff was independently insured by Aviva who would be liable for any damages in excess of that amount.
Shortly after the accident, the Plaintiff put Economical on notice of a potential claim under the[…]