Edward Vincent Boyd Bergeron

This endorsement addresses three issues arising from a prior trial judgment: the statutory deductible for non-pecuniary damages, the prejudgment interest rate, and the costs of the action.

The court determined that the 2019 statutory deductible applied, reducing the net non-pecuniary damages.

The prejudgment interest rate was fixed at 1%, rejecting the plaintiff's request for a higher rate due to the defendant's conduct.

On costs, the court found the plaintiff was entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the Rule 49 offer date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, criticizing the defendant's inflexible settlement approach.

The court adjusted the plaintiff's requested hourly rates and disbursements, ultimately fixing fees at $300,000 plus HST and disbursements at $39,864.56 plus HST.

The plaintiff, Peter St. Marthe, sued the defendant for injuries sustained in a bicycle-car collision.

The defendant admitted liability, leaving the court to determine damages, contributory negligence, whether the plaintiff met the permanent serious impairment threshold, and if the action was statute-barred.

The court found the plaintiff's claim was not statute-barred, he met the permanent serious impairment threshold, and was not contributorily negligent.

Damages were awarded for non-pecuniary loss, past and future income loss, and future housekeeping and home maintenance expenses.

The defendant municipality sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing its summary judgment motion in a slip-and-fall action involving alleged failure to comply with the ten‑day notice requirement under s. 44(10) of the Municipal Act.

The motion judge had previously ordered a trial on whether the municipality suffered prejudice from the late notice and whether the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse under s. 44(12).

The court held that the authorities cited by the municipality did not create conflicting jurisprudence and that the prior decision merely determined that the issues required viva voce evidence at trial.

The court further found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order and concluded the matter was not of general importance warranting appellate review.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

The defendant municipality moved for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a winter slip-and-fall on a sidewalk, arguing the claim was statute-barred because the plaintiff failed to provide notice within the ten-day period required by s. 44(10) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The plaintiff argued that the municipality suffered no prejudice because weather conditions changed shortly after the accident and any evidence of snow or ice would have dissipated even with timely notice.

The court considered the summary judgment framework under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the statutory saving provision in s. 44(12) permitting late notice where there is a reasonable excuse and no prejudice to the municipality.

The motion judge held that the issues of prejudice and reasonable excuse could not be determined on the motion record and required a trial.

Summary judgment was therefore refused and a trial ordered to determine whether the municipality was prejudiced and whether the mistaken belief about ownership of the sidewalk constituted a reasonable excuse for late notice.