Chalmers

The parties reached a settlement following a trial management conference and submitted a consent to a dismissal order.

The court initially rejected the consent due to issues with legal representation for the corporate defendants.

After receiving confirmation that the self-represented individual defendant had filed a Notice of Intention to Act in Person and that counsel of record had executed the consent for the corporate defendants, the court granted the consent order dismissing the action and directing the payout of $1,000,000 held as security.

The applicant siblings sought an order for the partition and sale of a property they co-owned equally with the respondent sibling.

The respondent, who resided at the property rent-free, did not respond to the application.

Finding no evidence of malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct by the applicants, the court granted the order for sale.

The court also ordered the respondent to deliver vacant possession to allow the property to be cleaned, staged, and sold for maximum value, and awarded costs to the applicants.

The plaintiff brought a motion in writing for default judgment in the amount of $105,000 after the defendant failed to respond to the amended statement of claim.

The plaintiff had purchased a minority shareholding interest in the defendant's business, which was permanently closed shortly after.

The court exercised its discretion under Rule 19.02(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to order the plaintiff to serve the defendant with the motion record and endorsement, adjourning the matter for 30 days to allow the defendant to respond.

The plaintiffs brought a motion pursuant to Rule 7.08 for approval of a settlement of the claims brought by the minor plaintiffs arising from a motor vehicle accident where the stepfather/father was struck by a vehicle while crossing a pedestrian crosswalk.

The proposed settlement was for $150,000, with $2,500 allocated to each minor plaintiff.

The court considered the liability risks, including the likelihood of contributory negligence and the application of the Family Law Act deductible.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the minor plaintiffs, and approved the settlement.

A case conference was held to determine if there were any issues with the timetable for an upcoming motion to determine the legal capacity of William MacLeod.

The court found that the steps set out in the timetable had taken place, no issues arose during cross-examinations requiring immediate attention, and the parties were on track for the scheduled hearing.

The court also directed that issues raised by Mr. MacLeod in a letter could be addressed at the motion itself.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the jury due to the suspension of civil jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

After being advised by the court that a non-jury trial could proceed in March 2022 while a jury trial would be scheduled for June 2022, the plaintiff withdrew the motion.

No costs were ordered.

At a trial management conference, the self-represented defendant requested an adjournment of the peremptory trial date, citing medical issues and lack of counsel.

The court declined to entertain the request without a formal motion on notice.

The court also ordered counsel of record for the corporate defendants, who failed to attend the conference without explanation, to appear at the commencement of trial to show cause why costs should not be awarded against him personally.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant tenant for damages caused by flooding, relying on the lease's insurance and indemnity clauses.

The defendant requested a case conference to argue that summary judgment was inappropriate because a third-party action against its subtenant would continue, risking inconsistent findings.

The court allowed the summary judgment motion to proceed, finding it proportionate and unlikely to result in inconsistent findings, as the third party had not defended the main action and would be bound by its outcome.

The court adjourned the motion to allow the third party to retain counsel and the defendant to conduct cross-examinations.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a defamation counterclaim brought by one of the defendants.

The court convened a case conference to determine whether partial summary judgment was appropriate, applying the factors from Malik v. Attia.

The court declined to schedule the summary judgment motion, finding that it would not make the proceeding appreciably cheaper and that there was a risk of inconsistent findings because the main action and the counterclaim shared factual issues regarding allegations of fraud.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against a defendant driver who failed to defend an action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The co-defendant insurer opposed the motion, arguing that liability for the accident remained a live issue in the ongoing claim against it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the evidentiary record insufficient to determine liability and noting that granting partial default judgment could lead to inconsistent findings of fact at trial.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion for summary judgment.

At a case conference, the parties agreed not to proceed with the summary judgment motion at this time and consented to a timetable for mediation, documentary discovery, and oral discovery.

The court established the timetable and remained seized of any scheduling issues, noting it was too early to determine if a streamlined trial procedure would be appropriate.

The applicant sought to schedule a date for the hearing of an Application claiming $120,000 in damages for repair costs to trucks and loss of income.

The applicant argued the matter could proceed under Rule 14.05(3)(h) as there were unlikely to be material facts in dispute.

The court declined to schedule the Application, holding that a proceeding to recover damages arising out of negligence or breach of contract should be brought by Action, not Application.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to amend their Amended Notice of Application to add Sentry Insurance Company, Teva Canada Limited, and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA as respondents.

The proposed respondents consented to the relief sought.

The court granted the motion on consent, with the application against the newly added parties to be adjourned to a later date.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for court approval of a proposed settlement for a minor plaintiff who sustained a crush injury to her hand in an elevator.

The parties agreed to a settlement of $150,000, inclusive of damages, costs, and disbursements.

The court reviewed the medical evidence, finding the minor had reached maximal medical recovery with minor permanent sensory deficits.

The court also approved the plaintiffs' solicitor's contingency fee of $40,000, finding it fair and reasonable given the time expended, the complexity of the damages issues, and the excellent result achieved.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend the Statement of Claim to increase damages to $2,000,000 and to strike the jury notice due to trial delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for further medical examinations.

The court granted leave to both parties to bring their motions after the action was set down for trial.

The court allowed the amendment to the Statement of Claim and ordered the plaintiff to attend further medical examinations.

However, the court dismissed the motion to strike the jury, finding that the defendants would be prejudiced by the loss of their litigation strategy to have the plaintiff's credibility assessed by a jury.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice in a trip and fall action due to ongoing delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted leave to bring the motion after the action was set down for trial, finding the pandemic constituted a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances.

Applying a five-factor analysis, the court concluded that the plaintiff would suffer prejudice from further delay and that justice was better served by discharging the jury.

The motion was granted, with leave for the defendants to seek reinstatement if jury trials are permitted when the matter is called.

The applicant brought an application for payment of invoices.

At a case conference, the respondent corporation failed to appear despite being provided with the call-in details.

The court established a timetable for the application, including a deadline for the respondent to retain counsel in accordance with Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant law firm brought an application under the Solicitors Act to approve a retainer agreement with the respondent.

The respondent argued she lacked the mental capacity to enter into the agreement.

The Public Guardian and Trustee and other respondents argued the application should be stayed as the respondent was a party under disability requiring a litigation guardian.

The court found the respondent was a party under disability pursuant to Rule 7.01(1) and adjourned the application sine die until a litigation guardian is appointed or medical evidence confirms her capacity to instruct counsel.

The applicants brought a motion for a Norwich Order to compel Teva Canada Limited to produce relevant insurance policies.

The motion was withdrawn on consent after Teva agreed to produce the policies.

Teva brought a cross-motion for a protective order regarding a contract fabrication agreement and a QBE policy, arguing they contained highly sensitive confidential information.

The court granted the protective order, allowing redacted documents to be filed in the court record while unredacted versions are provided to the parties and the presiding judge.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment regarding a $1,000,000 loan.

The individual defendant alleged his signature on the loan agreement was forged and claimed the funds were distributed according to a promissory note, which the plaintiffs in turn alleged was forged.

Finding that credibility was clearly in issue, the court adjourned the motion and ordered the parties to provide oral evidence pursuant to Rules 20.04(2.1) and (2.2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if a trial is required.