Jeffrey Sheridan Shinehoft

The plaintiffs, Steven and Carolyn Nadeau, brought an action for damages after Steven Nadeau was injured by an automatic garage door.

They sued the building owner (Ontario), property manager (CBRE), door installer (Wilcox), garage manager (SP Plus), and maintenance contractor (Haws).

Wilcox, SP Plus, and Haws each brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the action against them.

The court granted Wilcox's motion, finding no duty of care owed to the plaintiffs and no basis for cross-claims, deeming it a rare case suitable for partial summary judgment.

The motions brought by SP Plus and Haws were dismissed, as genuine issues requiring a trial remained regarding their respective duties of care and, for SP Plus, ambiguities in contractual indemnification clauses.

Following a trial in which the plaintiffs’ occupiers’ liability claim arising from a fall in a municipal park was dismissed, the defendant municipality sought costs.

The court held that as the successful party the defendant was entitled to its costs of the proceeding on a partial indemnity basis.

A defence offer to settle consisting of dismissal without costs was found largely irrelevant to the costs determination.

After reviewing the costs outline, the court reduced the defendant’s requested amount as excessive and disallowed certain charges, including those related to other dismissed Family Law Act claims.

The court fixed costs for trial and pre‑trial work and awarded a total amount including HST and disbursements.

The court considered materials relating to approval of a proposed settlement involving an injured minor and related Family Law Act claims.

The proposed global settlement totalled $30,000 and included allocations for legal fees, disbursements, parental claims, and repayment to the provincial health insurer.

The court identified deficiencies in the settlement approval materials, including the absence of the retainer agreement, incomplete docket totals, and lack of evidence that fee increases had been approved by the litigation guardian.

Concerns were also raised regarding the proportion of legal fees relative to the minor’s recovery and duplication of work arising from earlier defective filings.

The court directed counsel to cure the deficiencies before the settlement could be completed.