[11] At some point the number of inadvertent failures and the lack of any apparent “tickler” or follow-up system may lead to a tipping point. This case comes very close to that line but I see no reason to punish the Plaintiff, who retained a licenced lawyer, and was entitled to expect proper handling of the file.
[12] Here the same insurer was on for accident benefits, as the bike rider had no insurance that would respond. The insurer conducted surveillance to address accident benefits claims and ultimately settled them for a relatively modest amount.
[13] Here the Plaintiff’s lawyer’s firm’s actions were less than appropriate. They seem to have made a number of errors, failures to diarize and I suspect the possibility of an internal mail system that failed to bring both of the Court notices to Mr. Lam’s attention. The inadvertence and misplaced assumptions that a defence would be filed ought not to be placed at the feet of the individual Plaintiff.