Daniel Styler

The plaintiff brought a motion for a sixth timetable order to avoid dismissal of her action for delay under Rule 48.14.

The defendants opposed, arguing the action should be dismissed due to the plaintiff's repeated failures to move the litigation forward over ten years.

The court found the plaintiff's explanations for delay largely unacceptable but declined to dismiss the action because the defendants maintained a closely linked counterclaim and had also been dilatory.

The court granted the motion, imposing a strict peremptory timetable to ensure the action proceeds to trial.

The third parties, EMK, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the defendants' third party claim for contribution and indemnity arising from a fire at a poultry processing plant.

EMK also sought a declaration that Belgian law governed the contract for the sale of a boiler to the defendants.

The court applied the closest and most substantial connection test and determined that Belgian law governed the contract.

However, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that a fair and just determination of whether EMK had knowledge of the alleged defects under the Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods could not be made prior to the trial of the main action, as it risked inconsistent findings of fact.

The defendant, Olympia Trust Company, was successful on a pleadings motion in four proposed class actions and sought costs of approximately $61,000 on a substantial indemnity basis or $41,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the claim was excessive and suggested $20,000.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that the defendant's costs should be limited by the plaintiffs' own costs expectations or access to justice concerns.

The court awarded costs to the defendant fixed at $35,000 all inclusive on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendant, Olympia Trust Company, brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' statements of claim in four proposed class actions concerning syndicated mortgage investments.

The court found that the statements of claim were ill-organized, prolix, unclear, and contravened the rules of pleading by including evidence, immaterial allegations, and argumentative statements.

The court struck out the statements of claim in their entirety against all defendants but granted the plaintiffs leave to deliver fresh as amended statements of claim.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order dismissing a motor vehicle negligence claim.

The motion judge found that the appellant made a left-hand turn facing a yellow light in front of an oncoming truck driven by the respondent, who did not run a red light as alleged.

The motion judge concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the respondent's responsibility for the accident.

The appellant argued the motion judge reversed the evidentiary burden and erred in granting summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding the motion judge correctly applied the burden of proof and the appellant failed to meet the onus that shifted to her to demonstrate contributory negligence.

The defendants, Ammar Khan and Brink's Canada Ltd., brought a motion for summary judgment in a motor vehicle negligence claim arising from an accident.

The plaintiff, Victola Mayers, alleged Khan was liable.

The court applied the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin and found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding Khan's liability.

The court rejected both the plaintiff's "advance green light" theory, which was contradicted by an independent witness, and the "contributory negligence" theory, finding no evidence that Khan had a reasonable opportunity to avoid the accident.

The motion was granted, and the action was dismissed with costs.