Jay A. Skukowski

The plaintiffs and a successful co-defendant sought costs following a summary judgment motion that determined liability for a chain-reaction motor vehicle accident.

The unsuccessful defendants argued that costs should not be awarded until damages were resolved and disputed the scale of costs.

The court held that liability costs could be fixed immediately and awarded partial indemnity costs to both the plaintiffs and the successful co-defendant, as the parties seeking substantial indemnity costs failed to provide evidence of their formal offers to settle.

The defendant landlord moved for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff had sued a nightclub within the limitation period after falling from an elevated dance floor but only later added the landlord after discovering during examinations for discovery that the landlord participated in the design and construction of the stage.

The court considered the discoverability provisions under s. 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002 and the extent of reasonable pre-discovery investigation required of plaintiff’s counsel in occupiers’ liability claims.

The court held that the plaintiff was not required to seek information from adverse parties before discovery where those parties had no obligation to provide it.

The limitation period began when the plaintiff first learned of the landlord’s involvement during discovery, rendering the action timely.

In a multi-vehicle “chain reaction” collision case, the plaintiffs and two co‑defendants moved for summary judgment seeking a determination that the rear driver and vehicle owner were solely liable and that the other drivers did not contribute to the accident.

The motion judge considered evidence including a police accident report, transcripts from a related Highway Traffic Act prosecution, and discovery transcripts.

Applying the summary judgment principles articulated in Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court held that the evidentiary record permitted a fair and just determination without a trial.

The court found that the rear driver failed to rebut the presumption of negligence applicable to rear‑end collisions and rejected his inconsistent version of events.

Liability was therefore imposed on the rear driver and the vehicle owner, while the other drivers were found not liable.