David LeDrew

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing for court approval of a $10,000 settlement of the minor plaintiff's derivative Family Law Act claim arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court approved the settlement amount as fair and reasonable.

However, the court declined the request to pay the settlement funds directly to the minor's parent and litigation guardian, interpreting recent amendments to Rule 7.09 and the Children's Law Reform Act to maintain the presumption of payment into court absent evidence justifying an alternative arrangement.

The court also refused to sign the submitted draft judgment because it improperly incorporated unsigned minutes of settlement, bound a non-party insurer, and included overly broad release language.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After a pre-hearing discussion where a settlement was reportedly reached, the applicant and his paralegal failed to execute the settlement documents and ceased communicating.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application for arbitration.

The arbitrator dismissed the application as an abuse of process due to the applicant's failure to participate and ordered the applicant to pay the insurer's expenses of $1,983.15.

At a case management conference, the plaintiffs sought costs against the defendant condominium corporation for the late production of over 4,600 pages of documents.

The late production necessitated vacating a scheduled mediation and modifying the case management timetable.

The court found that the defendant's breach of the court-ordered timetable resulted in foreseeable delay and wasted costs.

The plaintiffs were awarded $1,500 in costs payable forthwith.

The plaintiffs brought an action for condominium deficiencies against the condominium corporation, board members, and the vendor.

Multiple third, fourth, and fifth party claims were subsequently issued, resulting in nineteen parties.

A case management conference was convened to address the scheduling of examinations for discovery and mediation.

To balance the parties' discovery rights with the need for proportionality and cost-efficiency, the court ordered time-limited 'summary' examinations of three hours per witness to take place prior to a mandatory mediation session.

If the matter does not settle at mediation, full examinations will be completed thereafter.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay.

The action, arising from a 2005 real estate purchase, was struck from the trial list in 2010.

The court found over six years of unexplained delay by the plaintiff and his counsel.

Applying the test for dismissal for delay, the court concluded the delay was intentional and contumelious, and alternatively, inordinate and inexcusable, resulting in a substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible.

The action was dismissed.

This motion addressed whether the mother of an unborn child, whose father died due to negligence, could pursue a claim for pecuniary losses under section 61 of the Family Law Act (FLA) as a 'spouse.' The defendant sought summary judgment to dismiss the mother's claim, arguing that the definition of 'child' and 'spouse' in the FLA did not extend to an unborn child for the mother's benefit.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that the mother was entitled to pursue her claim under section 61 of the FLA, consistent with the Act's remedial nature and the legal fiction of a child *en ventre sa mère*.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After his legal representative withdrew due to a breakdown in the relationship, the applicant failed to attend a pre-hearing discussion and the scheduled arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to Rule 37.7 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

As the applicant presented no evidence to establish entitlement to the claimed benefits, the application was dismissed and the applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses of $1,500.

At a pre-hearing discussion for a statutory accident benefits dispute, the parties could not agree on a hearing date.

The applicant requested dates in November 2013, while the insurer's counsel stated they were unavailable until February 2014.

The arbitrator scheduled the hearing for November 2013, emphasizing the Dispute Resolution Practice Code's goal of timely and expeditious resolution of no-fault benefits claims, and noting that systemic delays do not justify further delays for the applicant.