Jeffery Ian Beleskey

The applicant mother and respondent father co-signed a mortgage to help the applicant's son and the respondent's daughter purchase a home.

Title was taken as tenants in common.

After the couple separated, the applicant sought to remove the respondent from title, arguing she held her interest in trust for her son, who made the down payment and mortgage payments.

The respondent claimed he held his interest in trust for his daughter.

The court found that the property was held in a resulting trust for the son, as the respondent was added to title solely to assist with mortgage qualification and contributed no value.

The application was granted, and the applicant was declared entitled to the full proceeds of the property's sale.

The applicant sought an extension of time to bring a motion for leave to appeal a costs order issued by Smith J. The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant's explanation for the delay illogical and noting significant prejudice to the respondents due to the unpaid costs.

Furthermore, the proposed appeal lacked merit, as the applicant's grounds were too general and did not demonstrate a palpable and overriding error or error of law, which is required for leave to appeal costs orders.

The Co-operators General Insurance Company brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, Annette Brooks, to attend a second independent medical examination with a physiatrist.

The plaintiff opposed, offering to withdraw her own physiatry report.

The court granted the motion, finding that the examination was warranted to ensure a fair determination of the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries, despite the plaintiff's offer and the late stage of litigation, as the plaintiff's physiatry report was relied upon by another expert and the proposed examination was not duplicative.

The plaintiff was struck by an unidentified driver while riding her electric scooter in a parking lot.

The driver fled the scene shortly after the collision while the plaintiff was being attended to by her husband and a friend.

The plaintiff sued her husband's automobile insurer under the unidentified automobile coverage.

The insurer brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to identify the driver.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a triable issue as to whether the plaintiff's failure to obtain the driver's information was reasonable given her injuries and shock immediately following the accident.

This is a costs endorsement following the Court of Appeal's decision allowing both appeals and a cross-appeal in two consolidated ski resort injury cases.

The court set aside the orders of the Superior Court and remitted the matters back for further proceedings.

The primary issue on costs was whether any party should recover their appellate costs.

Blue Mountain Resorts and the respondents argued for no costs award due to the novelty of the legal issues, while Snow Valley sought partial indemnity costs of $25,000.

The plaintiff moved under Rule 21 to strike portions of the statement of defence relying on a ski resort waiver and release, arguing that s. 9(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 prevented the supplier from contracting out of liability for negligent provision of services.

The court held that the issue was novel in Ontario in the context of ski resort waivers and should not be determined on a Rule 21 motion without a full factual record and possible expert evidence.

Because the threshold issue failed, the statutory interpretation question was not decided.

The motion was dismissed with agreed costs to the defendants.

In a civil jury trial, the plaintiff brought a motion seeking to question sworn jurors for potential bias relating to abortion after the jury panel had already been selected and sworn.

The plaintiff relied on survey evidence suggesting Canadians hold strong views on abortion and argued that questioning jurors was necessary to identify potential prejudice.

The court held that civil juries are presumed capable of setting aside personal views through the trial process and judicial instructions, and that there was insufficient evidence of widespread bias that would justify such questioning.

The court emphasized the discretionary nature of challenges for cause in civil proceedings and warned that permitting such questioning could create delays and open the floodgates to inquiries on many personal characteristics.

The motion was dismissed.

An insurer moved under Rule 51.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to withdraw admissions in its statement of defence that the plaintiff was entitled to statutory accident benefits.

After discovery evidence suggested there may have been no collision between the insured vehicle and a school bus, the insurer sought to deny that a motor vehicle accident occurred and to dispute coverage under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Applying the three-part test for withdrawal of admissions, the court found that the proposed amendment raised a triable issue, that the insurer provided a reasonable explanation for the change in position based on new discovery evidence, and that any alleged prejudice to the plaintiff was speculative.

The court also rejected an argument that the insurer was estopped from denying entitlement due to past benefit payments.

Leave to amend the statement of defence was granted.