Jeremy Shaw

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel of record, arguing that counsel's ongoing business relationship with the plaintiff would inevitably make him a witness regarding the plaintiff's loss of income claim.

The court applied the factors from Essa (Township) v. Guergis and found the motion premature, as the plaintiff's income loss claim was currently based solely on tax returns.

The motion was dismissed with leave to renew if the plaintiff pursues an income loss claim inconsistent with his tax returns.

This endorsement addresses three issues arising from a prior trial judgment: the statutory deductible for non-pecuniary damages, the prejudgment interest rate, and the costs of the action.

The court determined that the 2019 statutory deductible applied, reducing the net non-pecuniary damages.

The prejudgment interest rate was fixed at 1%, rejecting the plaintiff's request for a higher rate due to the defendant's conduct.

On costs, the court found the plaintiff was entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the Rule 49 offer date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, criticizing the defendant's inflexible settlement approach.

The court adjusted the plaintiff's requested hourly rates and disbursements, ultimately fixing fees at $300,000 plus HST and disbursements at $39,864.56 plus HST.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury verdict awarding net general damages of $11,181.03, the court considered whether the plaintiff's injuries met the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The court found that the plaintiff, whose primary role was a homemaker, sustained permanent and serious impairments to important physical and psychological functions, including PTSD and depression.

The court ruled that the injuries met the threshold and dismissed the defendant's motion.

The plaintiff, Peter St. Marthe, sued the defendant for injuries sustained in a bicycle-car collision.

The defendant admitted liability, leaving the court to determine damages, contributory negligence, whether the plaintiff met the permanent serious impairment threshold, and if the action was statute-barred.

The court found the plaintiff's claim was not statute-barred, he met the permanent serious impairment threshold, and was not contributorily negligent.

Damages were awarded for non-pecuniary loss, past and future income loss, and future housekeeping and home maintenance expenses.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend the statement of claim to add his spouse as a Family Law Act claimant arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The proposed amendment was brought years after the accident and after the presumptive limitation period had expired.

The court held that the moving party failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption under s. 5(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002 that the proposed claimant knew or ought to have known of her claim within the limitation period.

The court also noted procedural deficiencies, including the absence of the proposed plaintiff’s consent as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Given the lack of evidentiary foundation and the prejudice to the defendants due to delay and impending trial steps, leave to add the claimant was refused.