Deborah Janice Lewis

Following a five-day jury trial where the plaintiffs were awarded a net judgment of $18,000, the court addressed the parties' submissions on pre-judgment interest and costs.

The plaintiffs sought approximately $114,000 in partial indemnity costs plus disbursements, while the defendant argued against any costs award, contending the recovery fell within Small Claims or Simplified Rules jurisdiction, and sought costs for abandoned claims.

The court found that both parties' litigation strategies were inconsistent with the trial outcome, particularly noting the defendant's "no liability" stance and lack of a Rule 49 offer.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $50,000 in costs plus HST and $18,677.42 in disbursements, emphasizing that a defendant's failure to realistically assess risk can lead to a costs award even for a low judgment.

The defendant's request for costs on abandoned claims was denied.

The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment under Rule 19.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure after the defendant was noted in default in a motor vehicle accident action.

The court found the defendant entirely liable for the collision and accepted evidence that the plaintiff suffered chronic pain, orthopedic injuries, and depression that significantly impaired his ability to perform flooring installation work.

The court held that the plaintiff met the statutory threshold under s. 267.5(3) of the Insurance Act for a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.

Non‑pecuniary damages were assessed at $65,000 before the statutory deductible, with additional awards for future housekeeping capacity, future medical expenses, and loss of future earning capacity.

Claims for past income loss and past housekeeping expenses were dismissed for lack of sufficient proof.

The owner of a motor vehicle brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims arising from a motor vehicle accident caused by the owner’s minor son.

The owner argued that he did not provide express or implied consent for his unlicensed son to operate the vehicle, relying on s.192 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The court applied the summary judgment framework from Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch and considered whether implied consent could be determined on the evidentiary record.

Finding the son knew he lacked permission, had never previously driven the vehicle, and had taken the keys without authorization, the court concluded there was no express or implied consent.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the claim against the vehicle owner.