3 total
Divided success on motions justified no costs order.
Following earlier motions by several defendants seeking dismissal of the action, a stay, or security for costs, the court addressed the issue of costs.
The defendants succeeded only in obtaining security for costs orders, and those orders were granted in amounts lower than requested.
The court refused the defendants’ requests to dismiss the action based on a final release, want of prosecution, or late service of the statement of claim.
Applying s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the success of the parties to be divided when viewed globally.
In the circumstances, no costs order was appropriate.
Motions to dismiss action denied, but foreign plaintiff ordered to post $15,000 security for costs.
The defendants brought motions to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury action on the basis of a signed release, failure to serve the statement of claim on time, and want of prosecution, or alternatively for security for costs.
The plaintiff, a Japanese exchange student, was stabbed by another passenger on a Greyhound bus.
The court dismissed the motions to dismiss the action, finding triable issues regarding the release and no prejudice from the minor delay in service.
However, the court granted the motion for security for costs, finding the plaintiff was not impecunious and his claim against the bus company and police lacked a good chance of success based on foreseeability.
The plaintiff was ordered to post $15,000 in security.
Lessee entitled to direct compensation for property damage from lessor's insurer despite rental agreement exclusions.
The appellant rented a truck to transport a machine, which was damaged in a motor vehicle accident.
The appellant sought compensation from the truck lessor's insurer.
The insurer denied coverage, and the motion judge dismissed the action, finding that the policy excluded coverage for property carried in the vehicle.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the direct compensation for property damage provisions under s. 263 of the Insurance Act applied, treating the lessee as a third party.
The court further held that exclusions in the rental agreement and any misrepresentation of the cargo did not limit the appellant's right to recover under the statutory scheme.
