C. Verconich

The moving party, a defendant in multiple actions arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims against him.

The collision occurred when the respondent lost control of his vehicle while attempting to pass and crossed into the moving party's lane.

The moving party relied on expert evidence suggesting his reaction time was within normal limits, while the respondents relied on expert evidence arguing he braked late.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting expert evidence and its admissibility required a full trial with viva voce evidence and cross-examination to justly determine liability.

The moving defendants sought leave to amend their statement of defence and cross-claim to add a claim for damages against a co-defendant.

The co-defendant opposed the amendment, arguing the two-year limitation period had expired.

The court found there was a triable issue regarding when the moving defendants knew or ought to have known of the co-defendant's alleged negligence in loading the cargo.

The court granted leave to amend, with the co-defendant permitted to plead a limitations defence.

The moving party, Echelon, sought production of a transcript of an examination under oath of the defendant vehicle owner, conducted by his insurer, Peel Mutual.

Peel resisted production, claiming litigation privilege.

The Master found that Peel failed to meet the evidentiary onus to establish that the dominant purpose of the examination was reasonably anticipated litigation, as the evidence indicated the primary purpose was adjusting a property damage claim.

The motion for production was granted.