Aaron Murray

The defendants brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement of $50,000 all-inclusive reached with the plaintiff's former counsel.

The plaintiff argued the settlement was based on a mistake due to a faulty translation by a paralegal during a phone call with his former counsel.

The court found that a clear and unequivocal settlement was reached and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or injustice that would justify refusing to enforce it.

The motion was granted and the settlement was enforced.

This mid-trial ruling addressed the defendants' intention to cross-examine the plaintiff and her property guardian on the total amount of an accident benefits settlement in a tort action.

The court denied permission to inquire about the total settlement amount, finding its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value, especially given the plaintiff's mild brain injury.

However, the court allowed cross-examination on specific components of the settlement (caregiver, attendant care, and housekeeping/home maintenance expenses) that were expressly pleaded and denied, deeming these relevant to the mitigation defence.

The ruling clarified that collateral benefits are deducted by the trial judge as a matter of law after the jury's verdict.

The defendant, The Personal Insurance Company, brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend a defence psychiatric examination.

The plaintiff opposed, citing concerns about the trial date being compromised under Rule 53.03.

The court found that a psychiatric assessment was necessary due to a recent material change in the plaintiff's circumstances (inability to work).

While acknowledging the plaintiff's diligent conduct, the court ordered the plaintiff to attend the examination and the defendant to serve the report by a specific date.

The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff $3,500 in costs, despite being successful on the motion, due to the defendant's delay in seeking the examination.

The defendants brought a motion for relief from the deemed undertaking under Rule 30.1.01(8) to use portions of the plaintiff's examination for discovery transcript from the civil action in a related statutory accident benefits (SABS) claim before the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The plaintiff argued the court lacked jurisdiction and that the LAT should decide the issue.

The court held it had jurisdiction to waive the deemed undertaking, leaving admissibility to the LAT.

The court granted the motion, finding the interest of justice outweighed any prejudice because the plaintiff had consented to the defendants' counsel acting in both proceedings and knew Canada Post was the sole decision-maker for both claims.

The plaintiff leasing company brought a motion for summary judgment to recover the balance owing under a vehicle lease agreement after the lessee stopped making payments following the alleged theft of the vehicle.

The defendants argued that their insurer should assume responsibility for the remaining payments.

The court held that the lease agreement required the lessees to continue payment regardless of insurance coverage and that any dispute with the insurer was separate from the debt owed to the plaintiff.

Summary judgment was granted against the primary lessee who admitted ceasing payments.

However, concerns about whether the alleged co-lessee had actually signed or understood the agreement created a genuine issue requiring trial as to her liability, and summary judgment was refused against her.

A motion to consolidate this action with a separate insurance claim against the insurer was dismissed.