Denise Junkin

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motions for summary judgment, the court determined the costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs based on an unaccepted offer to settle the motions.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, noting that Rule 49.10 does not provide a responding party much incentive to make an offer to settle in advance of a motion.

The court fixed the plaintiff's costs on a partial indemnity basis at $38,328, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, to be paid equally by the three moving party groups.

The defendants jointly brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's slip and fall personal injury claim.

The plaintiff slipped on ice while attempting to enter a bridal store.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the factual record was highly disputed and the electronic materials filed by the parties were voluminous, unorganized, and lacked necessary hyperlinks.

The court emphasized that summary judgment is inappropriate when the record does not allow the judge to confidently make findings of fact, and strongly criticized the profession's failure to properly prepare electronic motion records.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment in a motor vehicle collision action, seeking to dismiss the plaintiff's claim on liability.

The motion hinged on witness credibility, with conflicting accounts from the plaintiff, defendant, and a third-party witness.

The court found it could not fairly resolve the central credibility issues on a paper record due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies, the absence of objective evidence (e.g., police investigation, accident reconstruction), and improper limitations on cross-examination of the defendant.

The court also declined to order a mini-trial on liability, citing the potential for bifurcation and increased inefficiency if the plaintiff were to prevail, necessitating a separate damages trial.

Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident involving an American resident driver insured by GEICO.

The plaintiff issued a statement of claim just before the limitation period expired but was unable to locate and serve the American defendant for several years.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time for service and for substituted service on the defendant's insurer.

During the reserve period of the motion, the defendant's insurer located the defendant.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to locate the defendant, provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, and the defendant would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.