Chris Nicolis

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her motor vehicle negligence action arising from a collision at an intersection in London, Ontario.

The appellant's vehicle struck the respondent's pickup truck after the appellant proceeded through a stop sign.

The motion judge found the respondent was not speeding and could not see the appellant's vehicle due to an intervening cement truck.

The appellant argued the respondent should have been more cautious given the presence of stopped vehicles.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the respondent had no duty to reduce speed or take extra precautions under the circumstances.

The defendant insurer moved for an order compelling the plaintiff to undergo a neuropsychological examination, arguing the plaintiff had placed his cognitive abilities in issue in his claim for long-term disability benefits.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had not put his neuropsychological function in issue, none of his treating physicians had recommended such an assessment, and there was no evidence from a medical professional that the examination was necessary.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs following the dismissal of the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The court found that the defendant's motion was reasonably brought and did not warrant substantial indemnity costs under Rule 20.06.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, allowing the plaintiff's counsel's travel disbursements but reducing the fee element for travel time to one-third.

Costs were fixed at $8,500.

The defendant driver moved for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a pedestrian knock-down collision.

The moving party argued that liability could be determined on the written record without a mini‑trial.

The court held that material credibility conflicts between the plaintiff, the defendant, and an independent witness created genuine issues requiring oral testimony.

Given the conflicting evidence, the statutory burden on drivers in pedestrian collisions under the Highway Traffic Act, and the existence of a jury notice, the court concluded that summary judgment or a mini‑trial would not be proportionate.

The motion was dismissed and the action allowed to proceed to trial.