3 total
Summary judgment denied where credibility disputes required viva voce evidence at trial.
The self-represented plaintiff brought motions for partial summary judgment in two related civil actions arising from municipal employment disputes.
In the first action, the plaintiff alleged breach of a mediated settlement agreement and defamation arising from public statements made by municipal officials and sought damages and an injunction enforcing a confidentiality clause.
In the second action, the plaintiff sought summary judgment for wrongful dismissal against a municipality and sanctions for failure to comply with a court-ordered timetable.
The court held that genuine issues requiring a trial existed in both actions because the disputes depended heavily on credibility and conflicting evidence regarding the parties’ intentions and the nature of the employment relationship.
Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate, though the court imposed modest sanctions against the municipality for breaching the litigation timetable.
An insurer's right to examine an insured under oath survives the commencement of litigation.
The insured claimed the full value of an OPCF-19A endorsement after his vehicle was damaged.
The insurer suspected the initial appraisal was fraudulent and required the insured to attend an examination under oath pursuant to Statutory Condition 6(4).
The insured refused to answer questions about the appraisal and commenced an action.
The insurer counterclaimed for misrepresentation.
The motion judge held the insurer lost the right to the statutory examination once litigation commenced and granted summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the statutory examination can co-exist with discovery, its scope includes matters material to liability such as suspected fraud, and the summary judgment was improperly granted as the moving parties failed to adduce evidence.
Appeal dismissed as the trial judge made no legal errors in findings or costs orders.
The appellant appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.
The Court of Appeal found no legal error in the trial judge's reasons, evidentiary rulings, or costs orders, including the Sanderson order.
The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $25,000.