Ashley Artopoulo

The defendants made a written request under Rule 2.1.01(6) to have the plaintiff's slip and fall action dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or abusive.

The court reviewed the statement of claim and found nothing on its face to support such a finding.

The court declined to direct the Registrar to send a notice to the plaintiff, noting that Rule 2.1 is reserved for the clearest of cases and is not an alternative to a pleadings motion or summary judgment.

The appellants appealed a judgment enforcing a settlement and release, as well as the associated costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding no surprise or prejudice to the appellants regarding the settlement issue and agreeing with the motion judge's reasons.

However, the Court granted leave and allowed the appeal regarding costs, finding no basis for an award exceeding partial indemnity.

The costs order below was set aside and replaced, and costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondents.

The insurer defendant brought a motion seeking relief from the implied undertaking rule to compel production of a transcript from a witness’s examination for discovery taken in a separate but related action arising from the same motor vehicle accident.

The responding party argued that the transcript was protected by the deemed undertaking under rule 30.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and that privacy interests should prevail.

The court held that where the actions arise from the same incident and involve similar parties and issues, the prejudice associated with disclosure is minimal.

The evidence of the witness was central to the liability issue and access to prior sworn testimony was necessary for effective cross-examination.

The court concluded that the public interest and interests of justice outweighed privacy concerns and ordered disclosure, limiting the transcript’s use to impeachment purposes.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a release signed shortly after a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs argued the release should not bar the action because it was signed under a mistake, constituted a complex standard form contract, and was unconscionable.

The court held the release clearly settled all present and future claims arising from the accident and rejected the plaintiff’s arguments based on unilateral mistake, non est factum, rectification, and unconscionability.

The court found the plaintiff had several days to review the release, could have sought legal advice, and failed to produce evidence establishing a genuine issue requiring trial.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's finding that he had entered into a binding settlement agreement with the respondents.

The appellant argued that his disability rendered him incapable of entering into the agreement and that he had subsequently repudiated it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the appellant had a full and complete understanding of the agreement and that the respondents did not accept his repudiation.