Dwain Carlton Burns

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for a declaration that Economical Insurance held a valid and enforceable policy for a vehicle involved in a motor vehicle accident that caused catastrophic injuries to one of the plaintiffs.

Economical brought a cross-motion for a declaration that any claim regarding the accident was invalid and the right of recovery forfeited, citing the insured's failure to disclose material changes in risk, including the driver's G2 license status, a license suspension, and exclusive possession of the vehicle.

The court found that significant credibility issues regarding the driver's residency and vehicle use precluded a determination by summary judgment.

Instead of dismissing the motions, the court directed a "mini-trial" under Rule 20.04(2.2) to resolve these specific factual disputes.

The defendant brought a motion to adjourn a pre-trial conference to allow for defence medical assessments.

The plaintiff had served new and supplementary medical reports late, making it difficult for the defendant to comply with the 90-day expert report deadline before the scheduled pre-trial.

The court granted the adjournment, emphasizing the importance of trial fairness and the defendant's right to adequately respond to the plaintiff's medical evidence, noting that the plaintiff's delay contributed to the need for the adjournment.

The defendants moved to set aside a noting of default and default judgment, which had been granted after years of "bad litigation behaviour" and failure to comply with court orders, including payment of costs.

The original claim involved the defendant Rose Venneri Donatelli misrepresenting herself as a qualified psychologist with a Ph.D. The court applied the Healey factors for setting aside default judgments, finding the default intentional, the motion untimely (2.5 years after judgment), and no arguable defense on the merits.

The court emphasized that allowing the defendants to continue would be an affront to the integrity of the administration of justice, given their repeated non-compliance and the fact that the underlying judgment had been upheld through multiple appeals.

The motion was denied.

The defendant insurer brought a Rule 21 motion seeking determination of a question of law regarding the interpretation of a homeowner’s insurance policy after thefts of medical marijuana plants grown by the insured.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment on liability and argued the plants were covered as personal property under the policy’s general contents coverage.

The court held that the specific policy provision addressing “trees, shrubs and plants” governed and limited recovery to $1,000 per plant.

The court rejected the argument that the plants fell under the broader contents provision and also found that the grow‑operation exclusion did not apply to the theft of the plants themselves.

As the insurer had already paid the maximum amount permitted under the policy, the plaintiffs’ additional claims were dismissed.