Swiderski v. Broy Engineering Ltd., (1992) 60 O.A.C. 260 (DC)

• Judge: O'Brien, Greer and Adams, JJ.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: October 07, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1992), 60 O.A.C. 260 (DC)

Swiderski v. Broy Eng. Ltd. (1992), 60 O.A.C. 260 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

In the Matter of a proposed amendment of pleadings to add the appellants John and Carey Monague as party defendants

Eugene Swiderski, Josephine Swiderski, Richard Swiderski, and Joanna Swiderski (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Broy Engineering Ltd. and Susan Roy and John Monague and Carey Monague (proposed added defendants John and Carey Monague/appellants)

(No. 74/92 (Div. Ct.) and No. 366122/89)

Indexed As: Swiderski v. Broy Engineering Ltd.

Ontario Court of Justice

Divisional Court

O'Brien, Greer and Adams, JJ.

November 16, 1992.

Summary:

The plaintiff in a motor vehicle action applied to add two defendants after the expiry of the two year limitation period. A master granted the application.

Gotlib, J., of the Ontario Court of Justice, General Division, upheld the decision of the master. The proposed defendants appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the motion to add the two defendants.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1619

Relationship with client - Conflict of interest - Situations resulting in conflict - A lawyer acting for a plaintiff in a motor vehicle action failed to join a proposed defendant within the two year limitation period - The lawyer notified his insurer and the insurer instructed the lawyer to attempt to rectify the error - A judge of the Ontario Divisional Court stated that it was improper for the lawyer to comply with the insurer's request because of the potential conflict of interest - See para­graphs 21 to 24.

Practice - Topic 666

Parties - Adding defendants - Application of limitation periods - A lawyer acting for a plaintiff in a motor vehicle action failed, due to inadvertence, to join two proposed defendants within the two year limitation period - The plaintiff applied to add the proposed defendants - The proposed de­fendants stated that they were not preju­diced by the application - The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application because the plaintiff failed to show "special circumstances" - See paragraph 15 - The court stated that there was no auto­matic right to an amendment where the proposed defendant cannot show prej­udice - See paragraph 14.

Cases Noticed:

Weldon v. Neal (1887), 19 Q.B.D. 394; 56 L.J.Q.B. 621 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2]

Murphy v. Welsh (1991), 50 O.A.C. 246; 3 O.R.(3d) 182 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 2, 27].

Papamonolopoulos v. Board of Education (City of Toronto) (1986), 16 O.A.C. 249; 56 O.R.(2d) 1; 30 D.L.R.(4th) 269, refd to. [paras. 3, 36].

Basarsky v. Quinlan, [1972] S.C.R. 380; 24 D.L.R.(3d) 720, refd to. [paras. 7, 55].

Swain's Estate v. Lake of the Woods Dis­trict Hospital (1992), 56 O.A.C. 327; 8 O.R.(3d) 74 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 8, 44].

Morley v. Wiggins (1985), 7 O.A.C. 324; 49 O.R.(2d) 136 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 11].

Maracle v. Travellers Indemnity Company of Canada (1991), 125 N.R. 294; 80 D.L.R.(4th) 652 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 11, 27].

Thompson v. Brown, [1981] 1 W.L.R. 744 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 13].

Deerness v. John Keeble & Son (Bran­tham) Ltd., [1983] 2 Lloyd's L.R. 260 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 13].

Woolford v. Lockhart (1985), 2 C.P.C.(2d) 16 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Deaville v. Boegeman (1984), 6 O.A.C. 297; 48 O.R.(2d) 725 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Stoicevski v. Casement (1983), 43 O.R.(2d) 436 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Cook v. Bergevin (1977), 16 O.R.(2d) 418 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Martin v. Kingston City Coach Co., [1946] O.W.N. 915, refd to. [para. 40].

Vilela Estate v. Amber Foods Ltd. (1991), 5 O.R.(2d) 124 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 57].

Statutes Noticed:

Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 315, sect. 206 [para. 41].

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), rule 5.03 [para. 5]; rule 26.01 [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta Law Reform Institute, Limita­tions (1986) [para. 12].

Law Reform Commission of Saskatche- wan, Tentative Proposals for Changes in Limitations Legislation Part II: The Limitation of Actions Act (1986) [para. 12].

Mew, Graeme, The Law of Limitations (1991), p. 7 [para. 10].

Newfoundland Law Reform Commission, Report on Limitation of Actions (1986), N.L.R.C. 1 [para. 12].

Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report on Limitations of Actions (1969) [para. 12].

Watson, Garry D., Amendment of Pro­ceedings After Limitation Periods (1975), 53 Can. Bar Rev. 237 [para. 10].

Counsel:

O. Rudzik, for the plaintiffs/respondents;

D. Dacquisto, for the appellants (added parties, Monagues).

This appeal was heard by O'Brien, Greer and Adams, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court on October 7, 1992. The decision of the court was released on November 16, 1992, and the following opinions were filed:

Adams, J. (Greer, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 16;

O'Brien, J. - see paragraphs 17 to 66.