J. Goodman

The plaintiff commenced a personal injury action in 2000 after allegedly being struck by a falling box in the defendant's store.

Over 20 years, the action was marked by extreme delay, non-compliance with court orders, and the plaintiff's failure to attend defence medical examinations.

When the plaintiff failed to attend the peremptory trial date in September 2021, the defendant moved to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff had clear notice of the trial date and provided no explanation for her absence.

The action was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs fixed at $82,725.88.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion for summary judgment.

At a case conference, the parties agreed not to proceed with the summary judgment motion at this time and consented to a timetable for mediation, documentary discovery, and oral discovery.

The court established the timetable and remained seized of any scheduling issues, noting it was too early to determine if a streamlined trial procedure would be appropriate.

The defendant employer brought a motion to strike paragraphs from the plaintiff employee's wrongful dismissal Statement of Claim, arguing they improperly disclosed privileged settlement offers.

The plaintiff argued the offers were threats relevant to his claim for bad faith and punitive damages.

The court found there was a triable issue regarding the characterization of the offers, applying an 'air of reality' test.

However, the court struck the impugned paragraphs with leave to amend because they improperly pleaded evidence rather than material facts.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability.

The defendants argued that the motions judge erred by declining to summarily dismiss the action against them during the plaintiffs' motion.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the summary judgment process is discretionary and does not require a judge to resolve all issues.

The court also held that the motions judge did not err in requiring the defendants to bring a formal cross-motion for summary dismissal to ensure fairness to the plaintiffs.