Ian P. Newcombe

Following a mid-trial settlement of a personal injury claim for $450,000, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the plaintiffs.

The court significantly reduced the plaintiffs' claimed fees from over $335,000 to $80,000, citing bloated docketing, failure to correct discovery evidence under Rule 31.09, and the late discovery of damaging social media evidence.

Certain disbursements for expert witnesses and investigators were also disallowed as not reasonably necessary.

In a civil dispute concerning the origin of perennial rye grass and damages related to a golf course, the court assumed case management of the proceeding.

The judge ordered that all future motions be brought before the same judge or with that judge’s consent.

A litigation timetable was imposed requiring expert reports on the grass origin and damages issues, mediation, a meeting of experts with a joint report identifying agreed and disputed issues, and a final trial management conference.

The court also directed that the third party action be tried together with the main action.

The municipal defendant brought a motion seeking several forms of relief including orders compelling compliance with a prior disclosure order, production of medical and tax records, responses to undertakings and refusals, and leave to amend its defence to plead a notice limitation under the Libel and Slander Act.

The court granted leave to bring the motion and resolved most disclosure disputes through undertakings or by deeming earlier orders satisfied.

The request for production of medical records was refused because the parties had previously agreed that such disclosure would not be required after the plaintiff withdrew health-related damages claims.

However, the court granted leave to amend the defence to plead the statutory notice limitation, finding no compensable prejudice to the plaintiff despite the late stage of the litigation.

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.

The applicants alleged that the respondents discriminated against them based on family status when they were asked to move to an outer waiting area at a court reporting centre because they had a baby with them.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that even if the applicants' allegations were true, the respondents' conduct did not amount to substantive discrimination, as moving to a similar waiting area did not create a true disadvantage.

Furthermore, the applicants failed to trigger the duty to accommodate by not informing the respondents that the outer area was uncomfortable for their baby before leaving the premises.

The applications were dismissed.

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.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their claim for business interruption losses following a fire at their towing and collision repair facility.

They argued the trial judge's reasons were inadequate and misapprehended the evidence regarding the impact of the fire and subsequent arson rumours on their business.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge's reasons standing alone made appellate review difficult, the basis for her rejection of the appellants' evidence and expert report was patent on the record.

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.

The plaintiff was injured in a motorcycle collision at an intersection and alleged the accident was caused by overgrown brush obscuring a stop sign.

The intersection had been transferred from the Regional Municipality to the City 108 days prior to the accident.

The Region successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that the transfer of jurisdiction completely extinguished its liability for non-repair.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the transfer of the road did not instantly absolve the Region of potential liability for prior negligence in maintaining the road, and that factual issues regarding the City's opportunity to inspect and repair required a trial.