D. Treilhard

The defendant insurer brought a motion for particulars of the plaintiffs' statement of claim regarding a house fire contents claim, prior to delivering its statement of defence.

The court reviewed the principles governing particulars and held that where oral discovery is available, particulars are generally limited to what a party requires to respond to a pleading.

The court found that most of the plaintiffs' allegations were pleaded with sufficient particularity to allow the defendant to plead.

However, the court struck a boilerplate claim for 'further and other damages' and ordered the plaintiffs to provide particulars of their claim for 'special damages' within 30 days.

The plaintiff was driving past a baseball stadium when a baseball hit out of the park during batting practice shattered her window and struck her head.

She sued the city, the home team, and the visiting team (the Duluth Huskies).

The visiting team moved for summary judgment, arguing a visiting team cannot be liable for balls hit out of a stadium.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, noting that pleadings were not yet closed for the other defendants and that factual issues remained regarding where the players were batting from and their knowledge of gaps in the protective netting.

The defendants, Emilio and Kristi Feletto, brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs' claim arose from the purchase of a residential property allegedly built with major structural defects.

The court struck two subparagraphs against Emilio with leave to amend, but declined to strike the remaining impugned paragraphs, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claims in negligence, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation would fail.

The plaintiffs were awarded costs of the motion.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury claim, arguing it was barred by an 'Informed Consent Form for Physical Activities' signed by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a Police Foundations student, was injured when he struck his head on a protruding basketball hoop while running on the college's track.

The court applied the Tercon framework and held that the waiver, read in context, applied to health-related risks and physical exertion, not to liability for defective premises under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The motion was dismissed.