Christopher F. Reil

The plaintiffs in a personal injury action sought a redaction order to conceal the amount of a settlement and advance payments, as well as expert reports on damages, from the public record.

The motion was dismissed.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a serious risk to important public interests such as settlement privilege, confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements, or the privacy of litigants, as required by the Sierra Club test.

The extensive media attention was not considered a measure of public interest.

The court issued a costs endorsement for multiple motions heard on January 9, 2020, in an insurance dispute.

The plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs against AXA and McLeod for successful production motions, and against AXA for a successful motion regarding the "building under construction" exclusion.

The defendants Irvin Hoffman and Cohen & Lord Insurance Brokers Limited also received partial indemnity costs from AXA for their successful motion on the "building under construction" exclusion.

The plaintiffs were awarded substantial indemnity costs against McLeod and the brokers for their unsuccessful summary judgment motions, as the moving defendants acted unreasonably by failing to adduce sufficient evidence on discoverability.

The court fixed specific amounts for each cost award.

The appellant appealed from a partial summary judgment that limited the respondents' liability to $2 million pursuant to a liability cap in a personal services contract.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in interpreting the contract by relying on subsequent conduct of the parties and in extending the liability cap to respondents who were not parties to the original contract.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's interpretation, finding no error in principle and affirming that the contract was extended to apply to the construction phase and that the liability cap was intended to benefit all respondents.

The plaintiff was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant insurer, State Farm, brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the vehicle owner, Ms. Barrett, had given consent for the driver to possess the vehicle, making her liable under the Highway Traffic Act.

Ms. Barrett contended she did not give consent to drive, only to retrieve items from the car.

The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding whether giving keys to retrieve items constitutes "possession with consent" under the Highway Traffic Act, considering the driver's state and the owner's knowledge.

State Farm's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and Ms. Barrett's request for summary judgment was also denied.

Two appeals from a trial judgment concerning liability for environmental remediation of real property contaminated by dry cleaning solvents.

The trial judge found Fraser Hillary's Limited liable in nuisance and under section 99 of the Environmental Protection Act, awarding over $1.8 million in damages for remediation.

The action against David Hillary was dismissed.

Fraser appealed on grounds that the trial judge erred in finding it liable in nuisance and under the EPA.

The plaintiff appealed on grounds that the trial judge erred in failing to find negligence, failing to find the individual defendant liable in nuisance or negligence, and in assessing damages.

The appellate court dismissed both appeals, upholding the trial judgment.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to compel production of information from an insurance broker and to examine a representative for discovery, in anticipation of a summary judgment motion concerning insurance coverage.

The motion was brought after the trial record had been delivered, necessitating leave of the court under Rule 48.

The court reviewed the conflicting judicial interpretations of the test for granting such leave, ultimately reaffirming the "substantial or unexpected change in circumstances" test, where a refusal would be "manifestly unjust," and rejecting the broader "interests of justice" test as a separate ground.

Given the plaintiffs' long-standing knowledge of the insurance coverage issues, the significant delay in bringing the motion, and the absence of insurance coverage issues in the third party's pleadings, the court found no substantial or unexpected change in circumstances.

Consequently, leave was denied, and the plaintiffs' motion was dismissed.