Christopher Cheung

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave under Rule 39.02(2) to rely on a late expert engineering report in response to a pending summary judgment motion brought by the defendant property owners.

The defendants opposed the admission of the report, arguing it was produced after cross-examinations were completed and years after the incident.

The court granted leave, finding the report relevant, responsive to issues raised in cross-examination, and that its admission would not cause non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay $5,000 in costs on a set-off basis for costs thrown away.

Following a jury trial where the plaintiff's slip and fall claim was dismissed, the successful defendant sought costs on a partial and substantial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff argued that no costs should be awarded due to his serious injuries and limited ability to pay.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the case was not exceptional.

The court also rejected the argument for zero costs, noting insufficient evidence of impecuniosity.

Applying principles of proportionality and access to justice, the court reduced the defendant's claimed costs and fixed the award at $12,500.

The applicants sought declarations that the respondent insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify them for an accident, and that an OPCF 28A excluded driver endorsement was invalid and ineffective.

The court found that the insurer failed to comply with section 232(3) of the Insurance Act by not delivering a copy of the endorsement to the insured.

Furthermore, the specific endorsement signed did not apply to the vehicle involved in the accident, as it was not listed and the endorsement lacked a catch-all clause for added vehicles.

The court granted the applicants' requested declarations.