Agatha Dix

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff was awarded $2,000 for future housekeeping expenses, with all other heads of damage reduced to zero by statutory deductibles.

The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment, arguing the housekeeping award should not be reduced by a prior $3,650 accident benefits settlement.

The court found the settlement release covered past, present, and future housekeeping expenses, reducing the jury award to zero.

As the successful parties who had made a better offer to settle, the defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs of $138,416.42.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries from a motor vehicle accident.

The defendants admitted liability but brought a threshold motion to declare the plaintiff's non-pecuniary loss claim barred under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act, arguing the plaintiff did not sustain a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function.

The court applied the three-part Meyer v. Bright test, finding the plaintiff suffered permanent chronic pain, anxiety, driving phobia, and depression, which constituted a permanent and serious impairment of important functions.

The defendants' motion was dismissed.

Following a motion where a defendant successfully dismissed the plaintiff's claim but failed to dismiss a co-defendant's cross-claim, the court determined the costs payable.

The successful defendant sought costs against the plaintiff, which were fixed at $16,000 after considering the complexity added by the plaintiff's arguments regarding the threshold condition.

The co-defendant sought costs against the moving defendant for successfully defending the cross-claim, which were fixed at $5,155.82 on a partial indemnity basis.

Following a motion where a defendant successfully dismissed the plaintiff's claim but failed to dismiss a co-defendant's cross-claim, the court determined the costs payable.

The successful defendant sought costs against the plaintiff, which were fixed at $16,000 after considering the complexity added by the plaintiff's arguments regarding the threshold condition.

The co-defendant sought costs against the moving defendant for successfully defending the cross-claim, which were fixed at $5,155.82 on a partial indemnity basis.

The moving party sought summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident on the basis that the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff argued that the limitation period began either when a police report disclosed the identity of the moving party or when a medical expert later confirmed that the plaintiff’s injuries met the statutory threshold for non‑pecuniary damages under the Insurance Act.

The court held that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the identity of the moving party at the time of the accident and failed to act with due diligence in pursuing the claim.

The court also rejected the argument that discovery occurred only upon a later medical diagnosis, finding the plaintiff had sufficient information earlier to investigate and pursue the claim.

The action against the moving party was therefore statute‑barred, while a co‑defendant’s crossclaim for contribution and indemnity was found to be timely.