Diana M. Edmonds

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims by Albair William Faltas and Royal Arts Pharmaceutical Inc. Mr. Faltas's claim was challenged on the basis that he was an excluded driver and the vehicle was "operated" while uninsured.

Royal Arts Pharmaceutical Inc.'s claim was an "action per quod servitium amisit" for loss of services.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the interpretation of "operate" under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act when a vehicle is inoperable, and affirming that per quod claims remain a valid cause of action in Ontario.

The defendant moved to dismiss or stay the action due to the plaintiff's failure to pay $33,000 in costs thrown away from a mistrial.

The plaintiff cross-moved to set aside, suspend, or vary the costs order, claiming impecuniosity.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's cross-motion, finding no basis to vary the agreed-upon costs.

The court granted the defendant's motion for a stay, but not dismissal, conditional on the plaintiff paying the costs within 60 days, failing which the action would be dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved for an order to transfer a Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court and to consolidate or try together four related actions.

By consent, the Small Claims Court action and a line of credit action were ordered to be tried together with the main action.

The contested part of the motion concerned the consolidation of the "Envirotech action" with the other three.

The court dismissed the motion to consolidate the Envirotech action, finding that it did not meet the "gateway" criteria under Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as there were no common questions of law or fact, the relief did not arise from the same transactions, and no other compelling reason for consolidation was presented.

The court noted that the Envirotech action was a straightforward claim for services rendered, distinct from the complex main action.

This decision addresses three evidentiary issues raised at the commencement of a personal injury trial following jury selection.

The court considered the plaintiff's right to introduce expert opinion on pension loss, a family doctor's opinion on causation of a pre-existing back condition, and a treating psychiatrist's reports.

The court allowed the pension loss expert evidence, subject to an adjournment and potential costs, and the psychiatrist's reports, also necessitating an adjournment.

However, the family doctor's causation opinion was deemed to exceed the scope of a participant expert and was excluded due to non-compliance with Rule 53.03.