Adam Giel

The appellant (Third Parties) appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice, arguing that the motions judge lacked authority to order the discontinuance of a third-party action, erred in awarding costs to the respondent, and failed to address their cross-motion.

The Court of Appeal affirmed its jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge had the authority to order discontinuance, with leave being subsumed in the order, and that the costs decision was within the judge's discretion.

The cross-motion issue was rendered moot.

The third party in an equipment rental dispute brought three preliminary motions before trial: to permanently stay the third party claim due to late disclosure of an alleged Mary Carter agreement, to permit calling an expert witness, and to permit cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness despite not defending the main action.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the agreed statement of facts was disclosed in a timely manner.

The court allowed the motions to call the expert witness and to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness, finding interference with the expert's retainer and relevance of the plaintiff's evidence to the third party's defence.

The defendant brought a refusals motion in a personal injury action arising from a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff had refused to answer questions or produce records relating to a prior 2003 motor vehicle accident, arguing he had fully recovered and returned to work years before the 2017 accident.

The court held that the 2003 accident and its consequences were relevant to assessing whether the plaintiff was a thin-skull or crumbling-skull plaintiff, and ordered the plaintiff to answer the refused questions.