Allison Gaw

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order to compel the plaintiff to attend three defence medical assessments and for leave to serve defence expert reports late, after failing to comply with the timelines mandated by Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to provide a "reasonable explanation" for their non-compliance, as required by Rule 53.08.

The court emphasized that administrative failures or inattentiveness by counsel or staff do not constitute a reasonable explanation for such delays.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motions for summary judgment, the court determined the costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs based on an unaccepted offer to settle the motions.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, noting that Rule 49.10 does not provide a responding party much incentive to make an offer to settle in advance of a motion.

The court fixed the plaintiff's costs on a partial indemnity basis at $38,328, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, to be paid equally by the three moving party groups.

The defendants jointly brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's slip and fall personal injury claim.

The plaintiff slipped on ice while attempting to enter a bridal store.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the factual record was highly disputed and the electronic materials filed by the parties were voluminous, unorganized, and lacked necessary hyperlinks.

The court emphasized that summary judgment is inappropriate when the record does not allow the judge to confidently make findings of fact, and strongly criticized the profession's failure to properly prepare electronic motion records.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's jury notice in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision, citing anticipated delays in scheduling civil jury trials due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to bring the motion under Rule 48.04(1) but ultimately dismissed the motion to strike the jury notice.

The court found that the plaintiff had not moved the action forward expeditiously prior to the pandemic and failed to demonstrate that any potential delay outweighed the defendant's substantive right to a jury trial, noting that civil jury trials were likely to resume by May 2022.