Garett Harper

The appellants sought a stay pending appeal from an order striking their statement of defence for non-compliance with documentary disclosure obligations and a prior peremptory order.

The motion judge held the proposed appeal was weak, found no irreparable harm, and concluded the balance of convenience and justice of the case favoured refusal of a stay.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a trial where the plaintiff's $2.5 million claim was largely dismissed, with only $15,000 awarded under warranty.

The defendant was deemed the successful party for costs.

The court addressed the parties' conduct regarding document organization and hyperlinking during the virtual trial, which significantly lengthened proceedings.

Despite the defendant's success, their costs award was substantially reduced due to joint failures in trial preparation and adherence to practice directions.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the appellant’s action arising from a motor vehicle accident, following a jury’s verdict.

The appellant claimed the trial judge erred by not permitting the jury to deliberate on future income loss and housekeeping expenses, and by refusing expert testimony on these costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury's undisputed finding of no causation rendered the rulings on damages irrelevant.

Following a 14-day trial where the plaintiff's motor vehicle accident claim was dismissed, the successful defendant sought costs.

The plaintiff argued that his impecuniosity, relying on social assistance, should insulate him from an adverse costs award.

The court rejected this argument, noting the plaintiff had access to after-the-event insurance and that impecuniosity rarely prevents a costs award.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs, reducing the claimed fees and disbursements to an amount reasonable for an unsuccessful litigant to pay, fixing total costs at $158,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside the Registrar's administrative dismissal of the action for delay.

The defendant opposed, arguing prejudice due to document purging and a missing surveyor.

Applying the *Reid v. Dow Corning Corp.* test, the court found the plaintiff's explanation for delay less than compelling but accepted inadvertence for missing the deadline.

Crucially, the court determined there was no actual prejudice to the defendant's ability to defend the action, as necessary documents still existed and the surveyor's testimony was not essential.

The motion was allowed, and the plaintiff was given a new deadline to set the action down for trial.