Joe Bowcock

The defendants in a personal injury action brought a motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages for a jury trial, relying on the recently amended Rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that it would cause undue delay and increase costs.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while bifurcation can promote timely justice, the defendants' request was made too late in the litigation process, close to the scheduled trial date.

The court determined that granting the motion would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiffs by effectively adjourning the damages hearing for an estimated two years, outweighing any potential cost savings or efficiencies.

The plaintiff, Amanda Valentine, obtained a jury verdict in a motor vehicle action, exceeding her Rule 49 offers.

The defendant, Sebastian Rodriguez-Elizalde, admitted liability but made no monetary settlement offers, forcing a trial.

The court determined the plaintiff was entitled to partial indemnity costs to the date of her second Rule 49 offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, as the judgment was more favorable than her offer.

The court rejected the plaintiff's request for a remedial costs penalty under the Insurance Act, finding the insurer did not breach its duty to settle expeditiously or participate in mediation, despite its "hardball" approach.

The court fixed total costs, including reduced disbursements, at $172,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal order, validate and extend time for service of the statement of claim on the deceased defendant David Smith, and obtain an order to continue against Smith's estate.

The court applied the tests from H.B. Fuller Company v. Rogers and MDM Plastics Ltd. v. Vincor International Inc. for setting aside dismissal orders.

Despite the plaintiff's lawyers' delays, the court found the failure to act was inadvertent and that the defendant would not suffer significant prejudice, particularly given the preservation of evidence and the likely nature of liability.

The motion to set aside the dismissal and extend service was granted, and the order to continue was adjourned.

Following a jury verdict awarding damages for a motor vehicle collision, the trial judge determined collateral benefits, the statutory threshold for non-pecuniary loss, and the applicable deductible.

The plaintiff's award for future housekeeping was reduced to nil due to collateral benefits.

The defendant's threshold motion, brought after the jury verdict, was considered by the trial judge as required by statute.

The court found that while the plaintiff's impairments were permanent and important, they did not meet the "serious impairment" criterion under the Insurance Act and O. Reg. 461/96, particularly regarding substantial interference with employment or daily living activities, and lack of evidence on accommodation efforts.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss was barred, and the $30,000 general damages award was reduced to nil.

The court also clarified that the indexed deductible amount in place at the time of the threshold determination applies, not the amount at the time of the accident.

Following a six-day trial for a motor vehicle accident, the jury awarded the plaintiff $30,000 in general damages.

The defendants brought a threshold motion under the Insurance Act, arguing the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory exception for non-pecuniary damages.

The court analyzed the plaintiff's claim of chronic upper back pain and its impact on his employment as an RCMP officer, specifically his ability to earn overtime and train for the Emergency Response Team.

The court found that while the impairment was permanent, it did not substantially interfere with his regular employment, career training, or usual activities of daily living.

The defendants' motion was granted, and the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary damages was dismissed.