James Bromiley

The parties sought clarification on whether the court's previous costs order, which declined to award costs due to a mixed result on summary judgment motions, also applied to the costs of defending a dismissed counterclaim.

The court issued an addendum clarifying that the previous order applied only to the summary judgment motions and established a timetable for written submissions regarding the costs of defending the counterclaim.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on liability after a five-year-old child was severely injured by a riding lawnmower operated by the defendant neighbour.

The defendant had counterclaimed against the child's parents for negligent supervision.

The court granted partial summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim against the father, who was at work and unaware of the danger.

However, the court found genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the apportionment of liability between the defendant occupier and the mother, given conflicting evidence on the community standard of care for supervising children playing in neighbouring yards.

The appellant, a commercial rabbit farmer, appealed a trial decision dismissing his counterclaim that contaminated feed supplied by the respondent caused mass mortality in his rabbit herd.

The trial judge had preferred the evidence of the respondent's expert over the appellant's expert regarding the sensitivity of rabbits to mycotoxins.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment and weighing of the expert evidence.