J. Nisker

During a class action trial involving cosmetic surgery patients and allegations related to social media consent forms, the defendants called a witness and sought to qualify him as an expert in eDiscovery document collection and retention.

The plaintiffs objected on the basis that the witness lacked independence and impartiality, having blindly followed counsel's instructions and failed to ensure compliance with PHIPA.

The court ruled that the proposed evidence was factual in nature rather than expert opinion, as the witness was simply explaining the steps he took and the data he extracted from electronic medical records.

Since the evidence was factual and not presumptively inadmissible opinion evidence, the court did not need to address the impartiality objections, but noted that cross-examination on those issues could be relevant to the weight of the evidence.

Following a jury verdict finding the plaintiff 100% liable for injuries arising from a motor vehicle collision, the successful defendants sought substantial costs.

The court applied the reasonableness and proportionality principles governing costs awards under the Rules of Civil Procedure and appellate guidance.

While the defendants were entitled to partial indemnity costs because they succeeded at trial, the court reduced the quantum significantly due to excessive and duplicative claims, unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings by the defendants, and improper inclusion of certain items such as voluntary mediation costs.

Arguments by the plaintiff that costs should be denied due to hardship, alleged disclosure failures, or Rule 49 offer acceptance were rejected.

The court fixed a reduced costs award reflecting fairness and proportionality.

Following a motion for summary judgment where the defendant achieved divided success, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party succeeded in obtaining partial summary judgment regarding alleged vehicle defects but failed to dismiss the vicarious liability claim.

Given the divided success, the court exercised its discretion to award no costs to either party.

The defendant vehicle lessor brought a motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action arising from a single‑vehicle accident involving a rented vehicle.

The plaintiff alleged both negligent maintenance of the vehicle and vicarious liability of the owner under the Highway Traffic Act.

The court held that the plaintiff had adduced no evidence capable of supporting negligence in the vehicle’s maintenance or configuration and dismissed that portion of the claim.

However, the court found that s. 267.12 of the Insurance Act did not extinguish a plaintiff’s right to pursue vicarious liability against a vehicle lessor, as the statute addresses priority and payment obligations rather than legal liability.

The claim based on vicarious liability was therefore permitted to proceed.