Brian Grant

The plaintiff pedestrian was struck and severely injured by a stolen motor vehicle.

Her spouse was employed as a delivery driver and had a company van available for his regular use during business hours.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to determine whether the employer's automobile insurance policy, which included an OPCF 44R Family Protection Change Form, provided excess coverage for the injuries.

The court found that because the employer's shop was open and the van was available for the spouse's use at the time of the accident, the policy provided coverage, even though the spouse was not yet at work or using the vehicle when the accident occurred.

Following the successful summary dismissal of the plaintiffs' action due to the expiry of the limitation period, the successful defendants sought costs of $15,000 each.

The plaintiffs argued for a reduced amount of $10,000 each, noting the lack of settlement offers and the principle of proportionality.

The court applied the factors under Rule 57 and the principles from Boucher and Davies, concluding that the defendants' requested amount was fair and reasonable.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay $15,000 in costs to each defendant.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for negligent construction of a cottage and retaining wall, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The plaintiffs experienced slope failure and retaining wall movement in 2009 and received an engineering report identifying the issue, but did not commence their action until 2013.

The court found that the plaintiffs knew the basic essential facts giving rise to a claim upon receiving the 2009 engineering report.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.