Jennifer O’Dell

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to amend their statement of claim to advance personal claims for damages and increase the prayer for relief, stemming from an explosion in an apartment building they previously owned through a numbered company.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's decision.

The court found the motion to amend was brought too late, would cause presumed non-compensable prejudice to the defendants by materially altering the factual framework and requiring new evidence, and that the proposed personal claims by shareholders lacked a proper legal foundation as they did not demonstrate a personal cause of action separate from the company's claims.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action by the minor plaintiffs due to the litigation guardian's failure to appoint new counsel, as required by a previous court order and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The litigation guardian, who was self-represented for his personal claim, had not retained a lawyer for the minor plaintiffs despite over a year passing since the previous lawyers were removed from the record.

The court found insufficient evidence of diligent efforts to find counsel and emphasized the mandatory requirement for a litigation guardian to be represented by a lawyer.

The motion was granted, dismissing the minor plaintiffs' claims.

The appellants, plaintiffs in the underlying action, brought a motion before a single judge of the Court of Appeal seeking an order to compel the Regional Senior Judge to set an expedited four-week trial date.

This motion followed a previous Court of Appeal order that had set aside a partial summary judgment and directed the action to be restored to the trial list on an expedited basis.

The appellants argued that the action had not been restored as ordered.

The motion judge, assuming jurisdiction without deciding the *functus officio* argument, dismissed the motion.

The judge found that the previous order had not been breached and emphasized the inappropriateness of interfering with the trial judge's ongoing case management, who was actively preparing the case for trial.

The plaintiff was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding as an unbuckled, intoxicated passenger in a taxi cab.

The plaintiff's insurer argued that the taxi driver owed a duty of care to ensure the visibly intoxicated adult passenger was and remained seat belted during the trip.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the Anns/Cooper framework and found no such duty of care exists in Canadian law.

The court held that adult passengers are responsible for their own seat belts, and imposing a positive duty on taxi drivers to monitor intoxicated passengers would be unmanageable and contrary to public policy.

An appeal concerning the validity of an excluded driver endorsement in an automobile insurance policy.

The insured's driver's license was suspended, and she arranged insurance with the respondent on the basis that she would be an excluded driver.

After her license was reinstated, she drove the vehicle and had an accident.

The appellant, the injured parties' uninsured motorist carrier, sought a declaration that the insured was fully covered, arguing the excluded driver endorsement was void because it was not in a form pre-approved by the Superintendent of Financial Services under section 227(1) of the Insurance Act.

The court held that non-compliance with section 227(1) is a matter for the superintendent, not the courts, and that the use of an unapproved form does not necessarily invalidate the contractual agreement between the parties regarding exclusion from coverage.