B. Kurpis

The defendant, Metrolinx, brought a motion to remove the plaintiffs' counsel of record, arguing that counsel was a material witness to the negotiations underlying the plaintiffs' claims for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

The court applied the Essa factors and found that the defendant failed to establish that counsel would likely be called as a witness or that his evidence was necessary.

The court also held that the defendant was not entitled to disclosure of solicitor-client privileged communications.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment in an action seeking accident benefits and alleging bad faith in the handling of the claim.

The court found the action was commenced outside the two-year limitation period under s. 281.1 of the Insurance Act, which began running from the insurer’s clear refusal of benefits.

The plaintiff had also failed to submit a disability certificate certifying the statutory criterion required for non-earner benefits.

The court further held the allegations of bad faith were unsupported by evidence and subject to the same limitation period.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action.

Following a summary judgment motion, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The defendants had sought dismissal of extensive extra‑contractual claims including allegations of bad faith, negligent claims handling, and mental distress damages totaling several million dollars, which the plaintiff abandoned on the eve of the motion.

Although the plaintiff successfully resisted dismissal of her contractual claim for non‑earner benefits, the court found the defendants were substantially successful because the principal damages claims were withdrawn or dismissed.

Applying the principles under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, the court determined that costs should generally follow the event but must remain fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs payable to the defendants in a reduced amount to reflect the plaintiff’s limited success on the motion.

The plaintiff brought an action against her insurer claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court applied the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin and Heath v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co., concluding that the evidence provided on the motion was insufficient to make the necessary qualitative findings of fact regarding the plaintiff's post-accident impairments.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, as a trial was required to achieve a fair and just adjudication.