Faisal B. Joseph

The defendants appealed an order dismissing their motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay.

The motions judge provided no reasons, requiring the Divisional Court to hear the matter de novo.

The action, commenced in 1998 for false arrest, saw little activity until 2008 when the plaintiff served an expert report.

The court found the delay was not intentional or contumelious, as the plaintiff had difficulty obtaining an expert willing to testify against police.

The defendants failed to show prejudice or a substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible.

The appeal was dismissed, though the court strongly criticized the motions judge's failure to provide reasons.

The appellant challenged a judgment in an insurance benefits dispute concerning whether a proposed rehabilitation expenditure was a reasonable expense.

The court accepted that a significant-benefit threshold would be erroneous, but interpreted the trial reasons as finding only that the evidence showed no more than an insignificant benefit in the circumstances.

It held that the trial judge was entitled on the record to conclude the proposed expenditure was not a reasonable expense.

Leave to appeal costs was granted, and the trial costs order was varied so that there would be no order as to costs of the trial; the appeal was otherwise dismissed without costs.