By Ian Carruthers and Noel Harper
DISCLAIMER: This blog is intended to inform the reader about how the law was applied in a particular case. It should not be taken as advice regarding the outcome of any other case, even one that may have similar facts. The Court’s decision will depend on the facts of each case. Please call 1-844-210-9511 or visit carrutherslaw.ca if you would like to discuss your specific case.
We are back with another case involving the Limitations Act. Once again, picture yourself as the Justice, hearing an application from a plaintiff to amend a statement of claim based on new information they have received. Here are the key events in this case:
On August 26th, 2006, the plaintiff and defendant were both in a vehicle that got into an accident after the driver lost control and veered into a ditch. No other vehicles were damaged in the accident. The plaintiff initially filed a statement of claim on July 19th, 2007.
On May 16th, 2008, the plaintiff and defendant were both examined for discovery regarding the 2006 accident. They both identified the other as being the driver of the vehicle when the accident occurred. The defendant testified that another vehicle may have cut them off on a hill before the plaintiff lost control, while the plaintiff claimed that the defendant acted with unnecessary recklessness when he was approached by this phantom vehicle. The identity of this vehicle’s owner was unknown at this time.
On July 15th, 2009, a report from an independent adjuster first named the alleged owner of the phantom vehicle purported to have caused the accident.
On December 15th, 2009, upon reading the adjuster’s report, the plaintiff filed a notice of motion to amend his statement of claim to include the owner of the phantom vehicle as a defendant, and again on October 26th, 2010. It was not until May 19th, 2015, that the application was filed for a third time and heard.
Did you get it right? Check out the next post for the solution and a brief explanation of the case in question.