Boris Goryayev

The plaintiff S.M. brought a motion to strike his jury notice, filed in 2014, seeking to proceed with a judge-alone trial in March 2021 due to anticipated delays in jury trials caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The primary defendant, Ero Longo, opposed the motion.

The court applied the "justice better served" test, considering factors such as the substantive right to a jury trial, the extent of delay, and the practicalities of trial scheduling.

The court found that a six-month delay to an October 2021 jury trial blitz was not unconscionable, especially given the plaintiff's own delays in the action and the availability of retrofitted court facilities.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice beyond delay or that a judge-alone trial would better serve justice.

The motion was dismissed, the March 2021 trial dates were vacated, and the case was placed on the October 2021 trial blitz for an in-person jury trial.

The issue of striking the jury was left open for future reconsideration if the October trial does not proceed.

The defendant, Rakhi Kalia, brought a motion to dismiss an action commenced by her mother, Adarsh Kalia, alleging the plaintiff's lawyer lacked authority and had a conflict of interest.

Adarsh Kalia, through her litigation guardian, cross-moved for a timetable and case management.

The court found the lawyer was properly authorized, initially by a power of attorney and subsequently by the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The court dismissed Rakhi's motion (except for granting leave to amend her Statement of Defence) and granted Adarsh Kalia's cross-motion, ordering a case conference to establish a timetable for the action.

This costs endorsement followed a trial where claims of negligence against a regional municipality were dismissed, along with related Family Law Act claims and a cross-claim.

The successful municipality sought partial indemnity costs.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01, including the complexity, importance, and length of the 23-day trial, as well as the conduct of counsel and the financial circumstances of the unsuccessful plaintiffs.

The court found the municipality's requested costs somewhat high and the opposing parties' proposals somewhat low.

A total partial indemnity costs award of $365,000.00 (inclusive of fees and disbursements) was made in favor of the municipality, apportioned 65% to the plaintiffs and 35% to the co-defendant, whose interests were largely aligned with the plaintiffs due to a Mary Carter agreement.

The plaintiff was catastrophically injured in a single motor vehicle collision when the vehicle, driven by the defendant driver, lost control after traversing a dip in a rural road.

The plaintiff sued the driver and the municipality, alleging the road was in a state of non-repair.

The plaintiff and the driver entered into a Mary Carter agreement and jointly pursued the municipality for liability.

The court found that the dip in the road did not constitute a state of non-repair, as it did not pose an unreasonable risk to an ordinary reasonable driver.

The court concluded the collision was caused by the driver's excessive speed and distraction from opening a beverage bottle.

The action against the municipality was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim.

The defendant opposed several proposed amendments, including the addition of an alternative claim for damages for spoliation and claims related to the loss of long-term disability benefits.

The Master granted leave to amend to plead the independent tort of spoliation, noting it remains an open question in Ontario.

However, leave was denied for the proposed amendment claiming damages against the tort defendant for a long-term disability insurer's denial of benefits.

The motion was granted in part, with parties bearing their own costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to discovery questions regarding the defendants' homeowner's insurance policy and future investigations/surveillance.

The court found that questions about the homeowner's policy were not relevant as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate it would respond to auto claims or extend liability coverage via an umbrella policy, and the insurer had already complied with disclosure obligations under the Insurance Act.

Questions regarding future investigations/surveillance were also deemed improper as courts do not order anticipatory undertakings for hypothetical future breaches of discovery obligations.

The motion was largely dismissed, with costs divided due to some prior resolved issues.

A dispute arose after the defendant purchased a winning $2 million scratch lottery ticket while in a romantic relationship with the plaintiff and living with her parents.

The plaintiff claimed the parties had agreed to share lottery winnings, while the parents argued they owned the winnings because the ticket was purchased using their company's debit card.

The court held that the evidence did not establish any express or implied agreement between the romantic partners to share the winnings and rejected claims of constructive trust or unjust enrichment.

The court further found that the parents had implicitly permitted the debit card use and had no entitlement to the proceeds.

The winnings belonged solely to the defendant, subject only to a small damages award relating to a lost deposit caused by a freezing order obtained by the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs appealed an order of a Master requiring partial disclosure of a Mary Carter Agreement to a non-settling defendant in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The appellants argued the agreement was protected by settlement privilege and that disclosure would undermine settlement incentives and exceed the Master's jurisdiction.

The court reviewed Ontario jurisprudence on Mary Carter Agreements and emphasized that while settlement privilege applies, such agreements may require disclosure where they alter the adversarial landscape of the litigation.

The court held that the Master properly exercised discretion in ordering limited disclosure to ensure fairness to the non-settling defendant and to maintain the integrity of the adversarial process.

The appeal was dismissed and the order for partial disclosure upheld.