Jaime Wilson

The moving parties sought approval in writing of a settlement for an adult under disability, together with approval of a fee structure agreement and solicitor-client account.

The court held it could not grant the requested relief because the motion record was procedurally deficient, excessively long, improperly organized, and non-compliant with local guidance for court approval motions.

The endorsement criticized the inclusion of unnecessary and duplicative exhibits, inadequate grounds in the notice of motion, and failures to explain the relevance of cited rules.

The motion was adjourned, a fresh record was required, and the parties were directed to choose among a revised written motion, an oral hearing, or a case conference.

The applicants, having been successful on the main application, sought costs of $46,351.88 on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent argued the claimed amount was excessive, noting its own counsel spent significantly fewer hours.

The court found the applicants' hourly rates reasonable but the total hours claimed high, suggesting potential overlap between senior and junior counsel.

Applying the principles in Boucher and Rule 57.01, the court fixed costs at $40,000 all-inclusive.

The applicants' home was destroyed by a flood and deemed a total loss.

Their homeowners' insurance policy with the respondent included a guaranteed rebuilding cost (GRC) endorsement.

The applicants sought a declaration that the GRC coverage included the increased costs of rebuilding in compliance with conservation authority regulations and building codes.

The respondent argued that such costs were excluded by a clause limiting coverage for increased costs due to the operation of any law.

The court held that the GRC endorsement covered the compliance costs and that the exclusion clause, which was restricted to 'any law', did not apply to rules, regulations, or by-laws.

The court also found that applying the exclusion as interpreted by the respondent would virtually nullify the GRC coverage.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for psychological injuries.

The plaintiff, who was not present at the motor vehicle accident, suffered psychological trauma after hearing the immediate aftermath of the collision over the telephone while speaking to her injured daughter.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that whether a duty of care extends to an 'auditory witness' via telephone is a novel issue requiring a full trial.

The court also found genuine issues for trial regarding the discoverability of the claim under the Limitations Act and whether the injuries met the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an application to transfer her Small Claims Court action against Rogers Communications Inc. to the Superior Court of Justice and to add the CRTC and CCTTS as defendants.

The plaintiff originally sought $1,858.83 for alleged overcharges and issues related to cellphone repairs and account termination.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a transfer was necessary for a just and fair resolution of her claim, as her monetary claim was well within the Small Claims Court's jurisdiction and she failed to provide a proposed statement of claim outlining any equitable relief or viable causes of action against the proposed defendants.

Following a costs endorsement, the plaintiffs requested a reconsideration, arguing the court omitted to deal with elements of their discovery requests.

The court declined to reconsider, noting that the costs of the plaintiffs' motions for further discovery were already assessed and regrouped under the production issues in the earlier decision.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a previous order that dismissed her motion to transfer a Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court.

The previous motion was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to appear when called, having been directed to the wrong courtroom.

The court held that Rule 37.14, rather than Rule 38.11, applied because the dismissed motion was interlocutory.

Emphasizing the principles of access to justice and the liberal interpretation of the Rules, the court set aside the dismissal order and permitted the plaintiff to reschedule her transfer motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel his former counsel to deliver his complete file to his new counsel.

The former counsel refused to release the file until his disbursement account was paid in full, asserting a solicitor's lien.

The court found that the former counsel was not discharged for cause and therefore had a legitimate lien on the file.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the plaintiff would not be unduly prejudiced and the disputed disbursements could be assessed.

The plaintiff sued the defendant under the Dog Owners' Liability Act after being bitten by a dog in a park.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff could not accurately identify the dog or the owner based on physical descriptions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's evidence of continuously observing the dog until the defendant leashed it created a genuine issue of credibility that could not be resolved on a summary judgment motion.

The court directed the matter to proceed to a summary trial under Rule 76.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 48.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to conduct examinations for discovery of the defendant after the trial record had been filed.

The plaintiff argued that discovery was not conducted earlier due to a belief that liability would not be contested, or alternatively, due to inadvertence.

The court applied the flexible approach from BNL Entertainment Inc. v. Ricketts, finding that a brief discovery would not delay the scheduled trial or prejudice the defendant.

The motion was granted, but no costs were awarded as the motion was necessitated by the plaintiff's counsel.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident claim, the defendant brought a threshold motion arguing the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory requirement of a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.

The plaintiff adduced evidence from multiple medical experts and lay witnesses demonstrating chronic pain that substantially interfered with her employment and daily living.

Despite some credibility issues regarding the plaintiff's employment history and surveillance footage, the court found the corroborating medical and lay evidence sufficient to establish the impairment.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to remove settling defendants following a Pierringer agreement and to restrict their remaining claim to nuisance against the non-settling defendants.

The non-settling defendants opposed and sought judgment dismissing the action, arguing the settlement terms barred the plaintiffs from continuing proceedings where contribution or indemnity claims existed.

The court held that amendments under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure should be granted absent non-compensable prejudice.

The court found that the non-settling defendants retained their substantive right to pursue contribution or indemnity through declaratory relief and that any prejudice could be addressed in costs.

The amendment was permitted and the non-settling defendants’ motion for judgment was dismissed.