Elaine Vegotsky

The defendants moved to adjourn a lengthy personal injury trial arising from a 2014 motor vehicle accident, citing late service of expert reports and outstanding productions by the plaintiffs.

The court considered the principles for adjournment, including the objective of a just determination on merits and potential prejudice.

While some late reports for one plaintiff (Khadim) were not sufficient for adjournment, a recently served psycho-vocational report for the other plaintiff (Khan) indicating complete unemployability was deemed significant.

The court found that the defendants would be prejudiced if they could not adequately respond to this new evidence.

Despite the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on trial scheduling, the motion to adjourn was granted to ensure a fair trial on the merits, vacating the fixed trial date.

The plaintiff, Ian McLarty, was successful in his action for payment and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.

This endorsement addresses the costs of the proceeding.

The court found that the plaintiff's offer to settle, though not strictly compliant with Rule 49.10, triggered substantial indemnity costs from June 18, 2018, onwards, and partial indemnity costs prior to that date, under the residual discretion of Rule 49.13.

The court assessed the reasonableness of the claimed costs, considering factors such as the exaggerated initial lien claim, the complexity of the case (simple breach of contract), the necessity of junior counsel, and the defendant's conduct (false affidavit, failure to answer undertakings).

The court ultimately awarded the plaintiff $45,000 in fees, $5,850 in HST, and $7,351.48 in disbursements, totaling $58,201.48.

The plaintiff, a general contractor, sought payment for construction work performed for the defendant, Great Lakes Food Company, based on unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.

The defendant counterclaimed for damages due to delay and deficiencies.

The court found that delays were primarily due to the defendant's poor planning and CFIA licensing issues, not the plaintiff.

The court allowed the plaintiff's claim for extras at a reasonable "shop rate" but disallowed overtime and reduced the trailer damage claim.

The defendant's claims for deficiencies in Room D were dismissed, but a credit was allowed for drain covers in Room H. The defendant's counterclaim for damages under the Construction Lien Act for an exaggerated lien was dismissed due to lack of proven damages.

The court found the defendant wrongfully terminated the contract.

Judgment was awarded to the plaintiff for $87,244 plus interest.

The applicant, a military reservist, was struck by a motor vehicle and received weekly income benefits for 198 weeks.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant could return to light sedentary work.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant was physically capable of light sedentary work, he was not 'reasonably suited' for such employment by his education, training, or experience, given his long career in a demanding military role.

The arbitrator also determined the correct quantum of the weekly benefit based on bank records, as official payroll records were unreliable.

The insurer's claim for repayment of prior overpaid benefits was dismissed because the applicant did not contribute to the error.