Andrew E. Steinman

Following an application where the respondent successfully established coverage under her homeowners' insurance policy, the respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis relying on an offer to settle.

The court found the offer did not trigger the cost consequences of Rule 49.10.

However, as the respondent was wholly successful in defeating the application, the court awarded her partial indemnity costs in the amount of $16,073.12.

The insurer, Traders General Insurance Company, sought a declaration that it was not required to indemnify Elizabeth Gibson under her homeowner's policy for a claim brought by her adult daughter, Betty, who was injured at Elizabeth's home.

The policy excluded coverage for bodily injury to the insured or any person residing in the insured's household, "other than a residence employee." The respondent argued that Betty was either a "residence employee" or a "tenant." The court found that Betty was not a "residence employee" as there was no formal employment relationship, no contract, no wages, and no supervision.

However, the court concluded that Betty was a "tenant" because she occupied the property and paid rent, satisfying the two components of a tenancy, even without a written lease.

Since the policy did not exclude coverage for tenants, the application was dismissed, and Traders was found to have a duty to defend and indemnify Elizabeth Gibson.

The appellant, a personal caregiver, slipped and fell at the residence of her employer, Jeanne Birnie.

She initially sued Jeanne Birnie as an incompetent person, but that action was discontinued.

A second action was commenced against Jeanne Birnie, Michael Birnie (her son), and another defendant.

Michael Birnie was dismissed from the action by consent order dated September 26, 2008.

Approximately seven years later, the appellant moved to set aside the consent order, claiming newly discovered facts regarding Jeanne Birnie's incompetence at the time of the accident.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding that the facts were available through reasonable diligence at the time of the consent order.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no factual or legal basis to set aside the consent order and that the interests of justice did not support such relief.

The defendants, William and Mary Wade, sought an extension of time to bring a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against them, alleging that trees on their property obstructed visibility at an intersection where a serious motor vehicle collision occurred.

The plaintiffs, the Greens, opposed the extension.

The court dismissed the Wades' motion, finding substantial delay without satisfactory explanation, significant prejudice to the plaintiffs, and a risk of inconsistent factual findings if the summary judgment motion proceeded.

The court emphasized that the novel legal question of a private property owner's duty of care to motorists on adjacent roadways is best determined at a full trial, aligning with principles of proportionality, timeliness, and affordability.