Jiku J. Elamathail

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision declaring her a vexatious litigant after she filed over 160 applications.

The applicant argued the HRTO hearing was procedurally unfair and the decision was unreasonable, seeking to adduce a surreptitious recording of the hearing as new evidence.

The Divisional Court admitted the recording but dismissed the application, finding that the HRTO provided a fair hearing and reasonably concluded the applicant's conduct was vexatious.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to extend the time to set the action down for trial and to set a timetable for remaining steps.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for delay under Rule 48.14.

The court found that the plaintiffs provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, as they were actively working with experts to prepare liability and damages reports, despite their counsel's failure to communicate with the defendant.

The court also found that the defendant would suffer no non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.

The plaintiffs' motion was granted and the cross-motion was dismissed.

A case conference was held to establish a timetable for three actions arising from a water loss incident.

The moving party confirmed it owned the water heater and did not retain maintenance services, leading the responding parties to seek instructions to dismiss the action against the rental and maintenance companies.

The parties agreed to a schedule for discoveries and to an order that the three actions be tried together.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendant's jury notice in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs argued that the indefinite suspension of civil jury trials in Thunder Bay due to the COVID-19 pandemic would cause severe prejudice, including the erosion of damages due to inflation and statutory deductibles.

The defendant urged a 'wait and see' approach.

The court granted the motion, finding that the local conditions and the indefinite delay of jury trials in the Northwest Region caused real prejudice that outweighed the defendant's right to a jury trial.

Three actions were brought arising out of a water loss incident.

The defendant sought a timetable for the conduct of the actions due to the complexity of scheduling examinations for discovery with multiple parties.

The court directed the defendant to provide information regarding the ownership and maintenance of the water heater to determine if Enercare or Reliance Home Comfort are proper parties.

The case conference was adjourned to establish the timetable and determine the status of the actions against the water heater companies.

The court also indicated a willingness to order the three actions to be tried together upon consent of the parties.

The appellant insurer appealed a declaration that it was the first insurer to respond to tort claims arising from a single-vehicle accident involving a rented vehicle.

The renter, who was a passenger at the time, sued the rental company and the uninsured driver.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the renter's standard automobile policy was not 'available' to respond to claims against the owner and driver of the rented vehicle, as the policy only provided coverage for liability asserted against the renter.