Christopher Paul Missiuna

The moving party defendants sought leave to appeal from an interlocutory order dismissing a Rule 21 motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, noting that the underlying order was interlocutory and not binding on the trial judge.

The defendant grandmother, who was the primary caregiver for her severely autistic grandson, moved to strike a negligence claim against her.

The plaintiffs alleged she was negligent in altering her grandson's medication dosage and failing to inform his school before a trip to a public pool, where the grandson injured the plaintiff.

The court applied the Anns/Cooper test and found it was reasonably foreseeable that failing to properly medicate the grandson and inform the school could result in harm to members of the public.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding a prima facie duty of care and genuine issues for trial.

The defendant Aviva General Insurance Company brought a motion seeking to amend its Statement of Defence and compel the plaintiffs, Johanna Van Dijk-Alac and John Alac, to attend various defence medical examinations.

The plaintiffs claimed psychiatric, neuropsychological, and physical injuries from a motor vehicle accident, and Mr. Alac claimed for lost guidance, care, and companionship.

The court granted Aviva leave to amend its Statement of Defence.

It ordered Ms. Van Dijk-Alac to attend psychiatric and neuropsychological examinations, and Mr. Alac to be available to the psychiatrist for collateral information, but denied Aviva the discretion to unilaterally change experts or pre-determine the number of examination sessions.

The court also denied Aviva's request to be relieved of its obligation to serve expert reports prior to the pre-trial.

Following a successful motion involving a conflict of laws analysis concerning jurisdiction over an accident that occurred in New York State, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Applying the factors in Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized the complexity of the proceeding and the importance of the issues to the parties.

Although the successful moving party sought over $23,000 in partial indemnity costs, the court found the hours claimed excessive relative to the reasonable expectations of the losing parties.

The court therefore reduced the claim and awarded partial indemnity costs in a significantly lower amount.

Costs were ordered payable jointly by the plaintiff and an opposing defendant insurer.

Following successful summary judgment motions dismissing a motor vehicle accident action as statute‑barred, the defendants sought costs of the action.

The plaintiff had commenced the claim approximately eleven years after the accident and the court previously found she had not exercised due diligence under the discoverability principles governing limitation periods.

In this costs decision, the court applied s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 57.01 and 57.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding no misconduct or exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the default rule that costs follow the event, the court declined to award substantial indemnity but fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants were awarded their requested partial indemnity costs as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The defendants brought summary judgment motions seeking dismissal of a motor vehicle accident claim on the basis that the action was commenced outside the limitation period under the Limitations Act.

The plaintiff issued the claim nearly nine years after the accident and argued that discoverability did not arise until later diagnostic imaging revealed more serious injuries.

The court held that the plaintiff had ongoing and worsening symptoms for many years and failed to exercise due diligence in investigating the possibility of a serious and permanent impairment.

Applying the discoverability principles and relevant appellate authority, the court concluded that a reasonable person would have investigated the injuries much earlier.

The claim was therefore statute‑barred and summary judgment was appropriate.