Elizabeth Ackman

In a bifurcated trial concerning construction damage, the damages phase was completed and the main action settled, leaving only the crossclaims for the liability phase.

The cross-claimants brought a motion to compel the defendant developer to answer questions refused on discovery regarding insurance coverage.

The developer brought a motion for a declaration that the judge who presided over the damages phase was seized of the liability phase.

The court granted the refusals motion, finding the questions relevant to the amended pleadings.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the seized judge, holding that a bifurcated trial consists of two separate trials and the judge is not seized of the second phase as a matter of law; judicial scheduling remains within the discretion of the Regional Senior Justice.

In a bifurcated trial concerning construction damage, the damages phase was completed and the main action settled, leaving only the crossclaims for the liability phase.

The cross-claimants brought a motion to compel the defendant developer to answer questions refused on discovery regarding insurance coverage.

The developer brought a motion for a declaration that the judge who presided over the damages phase was seized of the liability phase.

The court granted the refusals motion, finding the questions relevant to the amended pleadings.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the seized judge, holding that a bifurcated trial consists of two separate trials and the judge is not seized of the second phase as a matter of law; judicial scheduling remains within the discretion of the Regional Senior Justice.

The defendant Tega brought a motion to strike amended defences to crossclaims delivered by co-defendants Goodeve Manhire and the Paterson Group.

The co-defendants had previously relied on deemed defences under Rule 28.05(2) but sought to file detailed defences due to a changed litigation landscape, including settlements and insurance coverage issues.

The court treated the motion as one for leave to amend under Rule 26.01.

Finding no non-compensable prejudice to Tega and noting the expanded scope of the action, the court dismissed the motion to strike and granted leave to amend the defences to crossclaims nunc pro tunc.

The moving parties, Goodeve Manhire Inc. and Goodeve Manhire Partners Inc., brought a motion to compel the responding party, Tega Homes Developments Inc., to answer questions refused on an examination for discovery.

The examination was permitted following the late delivery of an expert report by Tega.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that questions relating to a withdrawn expert report, previously canvassed issues, and the expert's retainer letter were properly refused.

The court also held that the foundational information for the new expert report was adequately disclosed within the report itself.

Costs were awarded to Tega on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claim arising from a real estate appraisal.

The plaintiff had relied on the appraisal to advance a second mortgage, but later discovered the property was worth significantly less.

The court granted the summary judgment motions, finding that the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as he knew or ought to have known he had suffered a loss more than two years before commencing the action.

The defendant sought leave to amend its statement of defence to assert adverse possession and add a counterclaim claiming ownership of disputed land.

The plaintiff argued the amendment constituted withdrawal of an admission because the original defence relied on acquiescence, which would defeat an adverse possession claim.

The court held that the original pleading did not clearly amount to an admission but assumed it might and applied the test for withdrawal of admissions.

The proposed amendment raised a triable issue, the defendant provided a reasonable explanation based on newly discovered aerial photographs supporting historical possession, and no non-compensable prejudice was established.

Leave to amend the pleading and assert the counterclaim was granted.

The plaintiff was injured when an employee of the defendant nightclub negligently discharged a firearm.

The plaintiff sued the nightclub for vicarious liability and breach of the Occupier's Liability Act.

The nightclub's insurer refused to defend the action, relying on a policy exclusion for bodily injury arising out of the ownership or use of a gun.

The nightclub brought a motion to compel the insurer to defend the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the claims in negligence and under the Occupier's Liability Act were not entirely derivative of the excluded conduct, and that the exclusion clause was ambiguous as to whether it applied to all insureds or only the one who committed the excluded act.