Jillian Kristine Beaulieu

The defendants and third parties brought motions to dismiss three related actions for delay, citing the plaintiffs' prolonged inaction over several years.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion for a status hearing and leave to amend their statement of claim.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the significant delay and did not rebut the presumption of non-compensable prejudice to the defendants, particularly due to the death of a key witness.

Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all actions for delay and dismissed the plaintiffs' cross-motion.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to set aside a registrar's order dismissing her action as abandoned due to delay.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by overlooking strong evidence that the respondents suffered no actual prejudice from the litigation delay or the delay in bringing the set-aside motion.

The respondents' conduct, including requesting a waiver of defence and later serving a statement of defence, belied their claims of prejudice.

The court emphasized that the absence of prejudice and the importance of deciding cases on their merits should take precedence.

The appeal was allowed, and the dismissal orders were set aside.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to exceed the seven-hour limit for examination for discovery of the defendants' representative and an order allowing them to move without notice to strike the statement of defence for non-compliance with undertakings.

The court granted leave for an additional four hours of examination, exceeding the seven-hour limit by 2.4 hours, citing the voluminous additional productions and numerous undertakings.

However, the court denied the request to move without notice to strike the defence, emphasizing that striking a defence is an extreme remedy and defendants should have notice and an opportunity to respond to such a motion.

This appeal concerns an arbitrator's decision regarding sanctions for an insurer's improper deflection of a statutory accident benefits (SABs) claim and failure to provide timely notice of dispute.

The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (MVACF) appealed the arbitrator's decision to impose only costs sanctions on TD Insurance, arguing that TD should be permanently liable for the SABs due to its conduct.

The court upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding it reasonable and within jurisdiction, as existing appellate authority supports that a breach of the "Disputes Between Insurers" regulation does not automatically result in permanent liability, especially when another insurer initiated the dispute process within the required timeframe.