Ava Hillier

This decision addresses whether the owner of a vehicle (Floyd Thomas) provided implied consent to his son (Robert Thomas) to possess and operate the vehicle, which was involved in a serious accident.

The court found that there was no implied consent, based on clear evidence that Robert knew he did not have permission, and that Floyd had a consistent history of restricting access.

The court declined to dismiss the action entirely, as other negligence issues remained for trial.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' personal injury action on summary judgment, the court determined the costs payable.

The defendants sought costs from the plaintiffs and argued the plaintiffs should also be liable for the costs of the third parties, whom the defendants had joined.

The court applied the general rule that an unsuccessful plaintiff is not responsible for the costs of third parties they did not sue, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from this rule.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants $44,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the defendants were ordered to pay the full costs claimed by the various third parties, totaling over $133,000.

The plaintiff, Timothy Bonello, was severely injured in a tug-of-war game at Gores Landing Marina, resulting in hand amputation.

He sued the Marina and its owner-operators for negligence under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the main action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendants met the reasonable standard of care.

The Marina was not obliged to prohibit recreational activities or supervise tenant-organized events, nor could it have reasonably foreseen the specific circumstances leading to the injury, such as the use of a looped rope or the lack of rudimentary safety equipment.

The Applicants, judgment creditors of Wayne Sydney Novak, brought a motion to compel Lawyers Professional Indemnity Company (LAWPRO), the garnishee, to produce documents and for further cross-examination of its representative regarding Novak's professional liability insurance coverage.

LAWPRO had denied coverage to Novak and filed a garnishee statement denying indebtedness.

LAWPRO brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the Applicants' amended notice of motion, arguing lack of standing and privity of contract.

The court dismissed LAWPRO's motion to strike, finding the issue of coverage relevant to the garnishment hearing.

The court partially granted the Applicants' refusals motion, ordering further cross-examination of LAWPRO's representative on coverage and production of LAWPRO's file (excluding communications with defense counsel protected by joint solicitor-client privilege).

However, the court denied production of defense counsel's file, affirming it was protected by joint solicitor-client privilege between LAWPRO and Novak.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action on a summary judgment motion, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $42,469.53.

The plaintiffs opposed the costs award, arguing that special circumstances justified denying costs to the defendant.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding no unreasonable conduct by the defendant.

The court reduced the claimed fees slightly due to some duplication of work and awarded the defendant $29,000 in fees, plus HST and $6,650 in disbursements, subject to clarification on a potential setoff claimed by the plaintiffs.