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 know more about your specific case.
Our case this week details an individual going up against a large corporation who applied to dismiss a claim due to what they saw as a lack of significant advancement. Once again, examine the facts of this case through the eyes of the Justice who is hearing the application and ask yourself if the action should be allowed to continue or not:
On March 26, 2007, a fire took place in a condominium complex, which was determined to have started from a clothes dryer. An action was commenced on March 19, 2009, against several defendants involved in the sale and manufacture of the dryer.
The last statement of defence in the action was filed on July 24, 2010, and the last third party claim was served on March 19, 2012. The first settlement offer was forwarded to the plaintiff by counsel for the defendants on August 2, 2012.
On July 25, 2014, the plaintiff sent an offer to the defendant’s counsel. In September of 2014, counsel requested an extension of time to respond to this offer, and sought factual clarifications and evidence regarding key questions, which were answered by the plaintiff.
On January 14, 2015, counsel responded with a counter-settlement offer for the plaintiff and commented on specific elements of the plaintiff’s claim. Settlement discussions proceeded in which specific heads of damages were debated.
On June 19, 2015, the plaintiff made a further offer and again made comments regarding aspects of the claim. In response, the defendants applied to dismiss the claim on July 9, 2015. Counsel claimed that the most recent significant advance of the action to this point was the aforementioned filing of a third party claim in March of 2012.
Come back on Friday for the solution and a brief explanation of the case in question.