Frank N. DelGiudice

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff sought over $1 million in damages, the jury awarded $3,000 in general damages.

After applying the statutory deductible under the Insurance Act, the plaintiff's recovery was reduced to zero, resulting in the dismissal of the action.

The successful defendants sought costs of approximately $340,000 to $355,000, arguing for substantial indemnity costs from the date of their $60,000 offer to settle.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the offer essentially sought capitulation.

Applying a 60% partial indemnity rate and making deductions for potential duplication, the court fixed the defendants' costs at $280,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

During a jury trial for a slip and fall in a commercial parking lot, the defendants tendered an expert to give opinion evidence on winter maintenance standards.

The plaintiff opposed the qualification.

Following a Mohan voir dire, the court found that the proposed expert had acquired special knowledge in winter maintenance through his post-graduate training and extensive work experience.

The court qualified the witness as an expert, noting that any deficiencies in his training compared to the plaintiff's expert went to weight rather than admissibility.

During a jury trial for a slip and fall in a parking lot, the defendants (the property owner and the winter maintenance contractor) conditionally settled their crossclaims.

The plaintiff sought disclosure of the settlement agreement.

The court ordered the agreement disclosed to the court and then to the plaintiff, finding that it altered the adversarial landscape.

Consequently, the court ruled that the defendants were no longer adverse in interest and prohibited defence counsel from asking leading questions during the cross-examination of each other's witnesses, except on narrow issues where adversity remained.

The plaintiff in a slip and fall action moved to strike the jury following the defendants' opening statements, arguing that defence counsel made improper arguments, impugned plaintiff's counsel, and injected personal opinions.

The court reviewed the impugned statements and found that while some comments crossed the line into argument and unfairly bolstered credibility, the transgressions were minimally prejudicial.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the jury, concluding that a short curative instruction would adequately address the issues without compromising the plaintiff's right to a fair trial.

In a slip and fall action arising from an incident in a grocery store parking lot, the parties raised evidentiary issues regarding the admissibility of business records before the commencement of a jury trial.

The plaintiff sought to introduce Ministry of Transportation records regarding weather and road conditions, while the defendants sought to introduce daily work sheets to establish their snow and ice clearing system.

The court found both sets of records to be logically relevant to the live issues of prevailing weather conditions and the defendants' response.

The court admitted both sets of records, noting that any potential prejudice from the MTO records could be addressed with a limiting instruction to the jury.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff was awarded $3,000 in general damages, which was entirely eliminated by the statutory deductible under the Insurance Act.

The trial judge declined to determine the threshold motion, finding the issue moot and noting that a ruling could undermine the jury's implicit factual findings.

The court also held that the 2015 amendment to s. 267.5(9) of the Insurance Act, which requires costs to be determined with regard to the statutory deductible, operates retrospectively and applies to the upcoming costs decision.