Jessica L. Kuredjian

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action, the third party actions, and all counterclaims and crossclaims arising from a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs did not oppose the dismissal of their action.

A third party opposed the dismissal of her counterclaim and crossclaim for contribution and indemnity.

The court held that because the main action was being dismissed, the third party's claims for contribution and indemnity had no basis in law and could not survive.

The motions were granted and all claims were dismissed.

During a personal injury trial, the plaintiff's counsel brought a motion under Rule 53.01(3) to recall the plaintiff as a witness after new documents were produced during the cross-examination of the plaintiff's family doctor.

The documents, which had not been disclosed prior to trial, contained notes and handwriting suggesting the plaintiff was attempting to manage her medical case.

The court granted the motion, finding that the interests of justice and trial fairness required giving the plaintiff an opportunity to explain the newly produced documents, and imposed restrictions on counsel's communications with the plaintiff prior to her recall.

Following an arbitration where the insurer successfully defended against the applicant's claim for income replacement benefits, the insurer sought its expenses against the applicant and/or her litigation guardian.

The arbitrator dismissed the insurer's claim for expenses.

The arbitrator found no authority to assess expenses against the litigation guardian and noted that the litigation guardian did not act in a frivolous or vexatious manner.

Furthermore, the arbitrator declined to award costs against the applicant, a vulnerable person with severe psychiatric issues, finding that doing so could have a detrimental effect on vulnerable persons attempting to access accident benefits.

The plaintiff brought a construction lien action against the defendants for unpaid invoices relating to the installation of an asphalt driveway, concrete curbs, and a concrete pad.

The defendants argued the work was defective because water drained toward their neighbour's property rather than the street.

The court found that the plaintiff had advised the defendants prior to construction that the street elevation prevented drainage to the street, and the defendants had instructed the plaintiff to proceed with drainage toward the neighbour's property.

The court concluded the plaintiff performed the work in accordance with the contract and ordered the defendants to pay the outstanding invoice plus contractual interest.

The appellants appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Justice rendered by Justice Paul B. Kane following a jury trial.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and awarded the appellants costs of the appeal in the amount of $22,000.

The costs of the trial were reserved to the discretion of the judge presiding over the re-trial.

The applicant sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) beyond the 104-week mark following a motor vehicle accident in November 2011.

The insurer had paid IRBs up to February 2015 but terminated them.

The applicant argued that the accident caused a traumatic brain injury and exacerbated her pre-existing Borderline Personality Disorder and substance abuse issues, rendering her unemployable.

The insurer argued that the applicant was already unemployable prior to the accident due to her severe mental health and addiction issues, and that the accident did not materially contribute to her impairment.

The arbitrator reviewed extensive medical records and expert testimony, concluding that the applicant's downward spiral began well before the accident.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to prove causation under either the 'but for' or 'material contribution' tests, as her inability to work was entirely attributable to her pre-existing conditions.

The application for ongoing IRBs was dismissed.

The plaintiff in a personal injury action brought a motion to compel a statutory third party insurer to answer questions refused at an examination for discovery.

The questions related to the insurer's investigation and reasons for denying coverage to the defendant.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that under Rule 31.06(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, an insurer must disclose the reasons for its denial of coverage but is not required to disclose the details of the investigation that led to that decision.

The plaintiff was rear-ended in a motor vehicle accident and claimed soft tissue damages, chronic pain, anxiety, and depression.

The defendant admitted liability, and the sole issue at trial was damages.

The trial judge qualified a defence psychiatrist as an expert despite serious reservations about his methodology and independence.

The expert's testimony focused primarily on alleged inconsistencies between what the plaintiff told him and her medical records, essentially attacking her credibility rather than providing independent psychiatric assessment.

The jury awarded only general damages of $23,500 and rejected all other heads of damages.

On appeal, the court found the trial judge failed to properly discharge his gatekeeper duty by not conducting a cost-benefit analysis at the qualification stage and failed to exercise his ongoing gatekeeper function when the expert's lack of impartiality became apparent during testimony.

The applicants sought a declaration that their insurers had a duty to defend and indemnify them in an underlying tort action, along with punitive damages and costs.

The insurers eventually acknowledged the duty to defend and indemnify for reasonable legal fees.

The court found the declaration issue moot due to the insurers' acknowledgment, assessed the reasonable costs for both the tort defence and the coverage dispute, and dismissed the claim for punitive damages, finding the insurers' conduct did not meet the high threshold for such an award.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss a social host liability claim arising from a party where an underage guest became intoxicated and was seriously injured in a car accident after leaving.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact that could not be fairly and justly determined on summary judgment.

The court also held that the established law on social host liability, particularly *Childs v. Desormeaux*, did not preclude a duty of care in this case, especially given the presence of underage drinking and the host's supervisory role.