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.

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.

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*.