John Graham

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the claims against a defendant vehicle owner, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs for both the motion and the defence of the action and requested a Sanderson order requiring the co‑defendant insurer to pay those costs.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles governing Sanderson orders, the court found it reasonable that the defendants had been joined and that the insurer had actively attempted to shift liability onto the successful defendant.

The court held that fairness justified ordering the insurer to pay the successful defendant’s costs.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs at $24,292.47 for the summary judgment motion and $75,000 for the remainder of the action.

The defendant grandmother moved for summary judgment to dismiss claims of vicarious liability and negligent entrustment after her grandson used her van to run over and kill a pedestrian in a public park following a drug deal.

The court granted the motion, finding that a public park is not a 'highway' under the Highway Traffic Act, precluding vicarious liability.

The court also dismissed the negligent entrustment claim, holding that the grandmother owed no duty of care to a pedestrian in a park and that the grandson's criminal use of the vehicle as a weapon was not reasonably foreseeable.