Hue Nguyen

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The court found the defendant entirely at fault.

The court concluded the plaintiff's injuries, which included chronic pain and post-concussion syndrome, met the statutory threshold as a permanent serious impairment of an important physical function.

The plaintiff was awarded $100,000 in general damages, $1,993.10 in special damages, and $143,560.78 for future care costs.

Claims for past and future income loss were dismissed as the plaintiff failed to establish she would have worked as a dental assistant but for the accident.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a summary judgment motion where the plaintiffs were wholly successful.

The court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs of $7,166.78, all-inclusive, payable forthwith by the moving party defendants, Subramaniam Jeyakumar and Financialinx Corporation.

The decision considered the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs, as well as the factors set forth in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The moving defendants, Subramaniam Jeyakumar and Financialinx Corporation, sought summary judgment to dismiss the action and crossclaims against them, arguing no genuine issue for trial existed regarding their liability in a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs opposed, citing conflicting evidence on liability and damages, and the co-defendant Jamie Marston's admission of only 1% liability.

The court also addressed whether leave was required to bring the motion under Rule 48.04.

The motion judge found that no consent was given to place the action on a trial list, thus no leave was required.

Alternatively, if leave was required, it was granted due to a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances (Marston's 1% liability admission).

Ultimately, the court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the allocation of liability between the co-defendants, and that summary judgment would not be a proportionate, expeditious, or less expensive means to achieve a just result.

The moving defendants sought summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a tractor‑trailer rollover accident.

The driver plaintiff, an independent owner‑operator, had signed a waiver agreement and capital compensation plan enrollment waiving the right to sue the defendants in exchange for private disability insurance benefits.

Applying the three‑part test from Tercon Contractors Ltd. v. British Columbia (Transportation and Highways), the court held the exclusion clauses applied to the circumstances, were not unconscionable, and were not contrary to public policy.

The court rejected arguments of unequal bargaining power and noted the plaintiffs had already received disability benefits under the plan.

Summary judgment was granted and the plaintiffs’ claims, including derivative claims by minor children, were dismissed.