Colleen M. Caza

The defendants sought leave to file a jury notice almost four years after pleadings closed in a motor vehicle accident action.

The court applied the two-part test from Proper v. Nikore, examining both the circumstances of the delay and prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court found that the defendants failed to establish that the omission of the jury notice was inadvertent, rejecting the argument that industry practice in motor vehicle cases should be judicially noticed.

The court also found that the plaintiff would suffer prejudice if leave were granted, as litigation strategy had been shaped by the assumption of a judge-alone trial, and the mediation settlement positions had been informed by that assumption.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sued the defendant municipality for injuries sustained after tripping on beach stones scattered on a public sidewalk.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the sidewalk was not in an unreasonable state of non-repair and that it had no knowledge of the stones.

The court granted the defendant's motion, finding that the presence of the stones did not constitute an unreasonable state of non-repair as they could be easily avoided by a person exercising ordinary care.

Furthermore, the court held that the municipality was exempt from liability under s. 44(3)(a) of the Municipal Act because it did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, about the stones on the sidewalk.

This case concerns the assessment of damages for trespass after the defendants clear-cut a tree line and filled a drainage ditch on the plaintiffs' adjacent farmland.

Liability for trespass was previously established by summary judgment.

The court awarded damages for reasonable restoration costs, out-of-pocket expenses related to a survey and municipal drain contribution, and compensation for loss of amenities.

The plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages was denied, as the court found the defendants' conduct reckless but not sufficiently high-handed or malicious to warrant such an award.

The plaintiffs, Judith Ann Murphy and Jason Andrew Murphy, brought a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability for trespass against the defendants, Timothy Mullen and T.S. Mullen Farms Ltd. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants clear-cut trees and filled a drainage ditch on Judith Ann Murphy's property without consent.

The defendants claimed they had consent.

The court found that no valid leave and licence was granted, as the parties had agreed to further discussion that never occurred, and the scope of work was not clearly communicated.

The motion for summary judgment on liability for trespass was granted in favour of the plaintiffs, with damages to be assessed at a later hearing.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages following an unprovoked assault by the defendant in a bar, which resulted in a severe facial laceration and PTSD.

The defendant was noted in default.

The court assessed damages, awarding $75,000 in general damages (reduced by a $25,000 prior settlement with the bar), $15,000 in punitive damages, and special damages, for a total award of $71,019.29 plus costs.