Nearly five years had elapsed between the car accident and the renewal motion
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court has allowed the renewal of a personal injury claim after the plaintiff’s lawyer cited challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic that contributed to the failure to serve the claim within the required period.
In Murphy v. GMCC, 2024 NSSC 122, the court has ruled in favour of the plaintiff, Marilyn Murphy, granting her motion to renew a notice of action and statement of claim in a lawsuit against General Motors of Canada Company (GMCC). This decision revives a personal injury lawsuit stemming from a 2018 car accident that expired after not being served within the required one-year period.
Murphy retained Crosby Burke's Emma Adlakha in July 2018 to handle her claim following an accident that led to her airbag deploying and causing injuries. She pursued legal action against GMCC, alleging product liability due to the airbag. A notice of action and statement of claim was filed on March 9, 2020, but it was not served within the required year. Therefore, Murphy sought an extension under Rule 4.04(6).
GMCC contested this motion, arguing that nearly five years had elapsed between the incident and the renewal motion. The company expressed concern about extending the limitation period to five years, leading to potential prejudice.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that Murphy was required to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that inadvertence led to the action's expiry and that she would suffer serious prejudice if the claim was not renewed. At the same time, GMCC must demonstrate that they would suffer serious prejudice that could not be compensated in costs.
In her affidavit, Adlakha cited the COVID-19 pandemic as a contributing factor to not serving the claim in time, as it overwhelmed her practice. She became aware of the expired claim only upon her retirement in January 2022. The defendant admitted that Murphy's counsel's inadvertence was responsible for the expiry but argued that the motion to renew was not filed promptly, taking an additional year to do so.
The court carefully analyzed the potential prejudice to both parties and considered the circumstances of the case. It noted that Murphy's claim had been initiated within the statutory limitation period, and GMCC had been aware of the plaintiff’s injuries since 2018. Additionally, the court emphasized that denying the motion would result in significant prejudice to Murphy, while GMCC would not suffer any irreparable prejudice that could not be compensated.
Ultimately, the court granted Murphy's motion, concluding that her inadvertence in allowing the claim to expire warranted an extension to ensure justice was served. The court affirmed the balance of prejudice in favour of Murphy, noting that she would suffer serious prejudice if the renewal were denied.
