Bruce Douglas Day

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings and find him in contempt due to a lengthy and extensive history of non-compliance with numerous court orders, including significant arrears in child and spousal support, failure to pay costs, and persistent non-disclosure.

The court granted the motion to strike the respondent's Answer, allowing the case to proceed uncontested without his participation.

While acknowledging the respondent's egregious conduct, the court deemed a formal contempt finding unnecessary given the severity of striking the pleadings and the substantial costs awarded.

The court also ordered the respondent to deposit his passport with the Canada Border Services Agency to ensure enforceability upon his potential return to Canada.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their summary judgment motion on the basis that the respondent's action was time-barred under the Limitations Act.

The respondent had commenced an action for dental work defects after initially pursuing a consensual resolution with the appellants.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the limitation period did not begin to run until the appellants refused the respondent's request for repairs at no cost, as the respondent had reasonably relied on the appellants' ameliorative efforts to resolve the dispute without litigation.

Following a jury verdict in a motor vehicle personal injury action, the court addressed outstanding ancillary issues relating to deductions for statutory income replacement benefits, entitlement to substantial indemnity costs, and the treatment of a prior costs award.

The defendant argued that statutory accident benefits received should eliminate the jury's income loss award under ss. 267.5(1) and 267.8(1) of the Insurance Act.

The court held that the deduction for income replacement benefits did not apply where the plaintiff had not advanced a tort claim for the same time period covered by those benefits, as this would effectively penalize the plaintiff and undermine the purpose of avoiding double recovery.

The plaintiff was awarded the adjusted income loss amount after statutory reductions and contributory negligence but without further deduction for benefits received.

The request for substantial indemnity costs was denied as the defendant's conduct did not meet the threshold of reprehensible behaviour required to justify elevated costs.