Truck driver who rear-ended plaintiff’s car gave ‘bombshell evidence’
The Ontario Superior Court has allowed U-Haul Co (Canada) Ltd to amend its defence against the plaintiff’s action and its proposed cross-claim against his brother to reflect evidence suggesting that the siblings deliberately staged a motor vehicle accident (MVA).
In Parweez v. Manbauman, 2026 ONSC 2456, the plaintiff brought the MVA action against the defendants M. Manbauman and U-Haul. On Oct. 24, 2018, Manbauman rear-ended the plaintiff’s car while driving a truck rented from U-Haul.
The same counsel initially defended both U-Haul and Manbauman. At his discovery examination on Oct. 29, 2024, Manbauman testified that he:
After giving this evidence, Manbauman retained his own counsel. The plaintiff, U-Haul, and Manbauman all brought motions.
In his motion, the plaintiff sought an answer to a question refused during the Oct. 9, 2024 discovery examination and an extension of time to set down the matter.
Manbauman moved to amend his statement of defence based on his sworn testimony at the Oct. 29, 2024 discovery examination. He wanted to allege that the plaintiff and his brother staged the collision.
U-Haul moved to amend its statement of defence to add assertions based on Manbauman’s evidence. U-Haul also wanted to file a third-party claim against the plaintiff’s brother. In its proposed amendments, U-Haul would allege that the brothers:
First, regarding the plaintiff’s motion regarding the refused question, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice maintained U-Haul’s refusal to provide the requested documents and information based on litigation privilege.
The court said it would be unduly prejudicial to ask U-Haul to reveal its litigation or settlement strategy or to disclose the contents of the documents prepared for the MVA investigation in anticipation of litigation.
Second, the court allowed Manbauman to amend his statement of defence. The court acknowledged that he dropped what could be described as “bombshell evidence” in his sworn testimony at a discovery examination, which surprised all parties, including counsel for the plaintiff and U-Haul.
The court found Manbauman’s proposed amendments based on his testimony viable. The court saw no non-compensable prejudice to the parties, given that Manbauman transparently asserted his version of events rather than saving it for trial.
The court noted that the case had thus far proceeded at a leisurely pace, with some delay arising from the death of the plaintiff’s previous counsel and the transition to his current counsel. The court expressed confidence that the parties would move faster going forward.
Third, the court permitted U-Haul to amend its statement of defence and proposed cross-claim. Describing U-Haul’s proposed pleading as clear and precise, the court pointed out that it:
“While the new alleged facts, based on the testimony of Manbauman at his discovery, will change, quite dramatically, the trajectory of this case for plaintiff (in particular), is not a trial a search for truth?” wrote Associate Justice Jay Josefo for the court. “Would it be the right approach to not allow these allegations to be aired, but rather, suppressed?”
The court noted that it would later reconvene to consider the third-party claim against the plaintiff’s brother, who should have an opportunity to be heard for reasons of procedural fairness.
Lastly, the court urged all counsel to agree on an extension of the time to set down the matter.
