Ian D. Corneil

The defendants brought a motion for leave to serve a responding expert report regarding future care costs after the court-ordered deadline had passed.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing prejudice and undue delay.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate prejudice, as the trial had already been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, the court ordered the defendants to pay costs of $2,000 to the plaintiffs due to their cavalier attitude toward court orders.

A third party in a motor vehicle negligence action brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a contribution and indemnity claim against him.

The motion arose from a collision involving two drivers where the only witnesses were the occupants of the vehicles and their versions of events were directly contradictory.

The court applied the test for summary judgment articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch and held that the case required the benefits of the trial process to properly assess credibility and draw factual inferences.

Given the absence of independent witnesses and physical evidence, credibility determinations could not be made on the motion record.

The motion was therefore dismissed and the third party claim was allowed to proceed to trial.

A defendant brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a roofer’s fall from a neighbouring property onto a metal fence.

The plaintiff alleged that the fence constituted a dangerous trap and that the occupier breached duties under the Occupiers’ Liability Act and a municipal fence by-law.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

It held that the fence was visible, not a hidden danger, and that the risk of a person falling from a neighbour’s roof onto the fence was not reasonably foreseeable.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the claim against the moving defendant.

Following the appellant's partial success on appeal regarding the calculation of the equalization payment, the court addressed costs.

Because the appeal increased the property award beyond the respondent's offer to settle, the court set aside the trial judge's costs award of $82,822 in favour of the respondent, ordering each party to bear their own costs at trial due to divided success and relative means.

The appellant was awarded $5,000 in costs for the appeal.

The appellant wife appealed the trial judge's order regarding spousal support and equalization of net family property.

She argued the trial judge erred in finding she could contribute to her own support despite her claims of post-traumatic stress disorder, and erred in excluding funds the respondent husband managed for his father from his net family property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the support appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of her employability.

However, the Court allowed the equalization appeal in part, holding that while the $500,000 principal was held on resulting trust for the father, the $140,000 in investment income generated by the respondent belonged to him and must be included in his net family property.