John P. Lundrigan

This endorsement addresses two motions in a personal injury action arising from a 2009 motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs, who commenced their action eight years post-accident, claim damages against the County of Renfrew for alleged road maintenance failures.

The County brought an omnibus motion, including for summary judgment against municipal employees and for documentary production related to the plaintiffs' limitation defence.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion regarding undertakings and refusals.

The court granted summary judgment against the municipal employees on consent, lifted the deemed undertaking rule for previous litigation files, and ordered production of those files subject to privilege.

The court also provided guidance on the form of affidavits of documents and ordered answers to some discovery questions while denying others.

The Defendant sought costs against the Plaintiff following the dismissal of the Plaintiff's action on a motion for summary judgment.

The court considered factors such as the principle of indemnity, proportionality, amount claimed, complexity, importance of issues, and conduct of the parties.

The Plaintiff, who was self-represented, had made the litigation more difficult and had unreasonably fought the dismissal.

The court awarded the Defendant fixed costs of $7,500, inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding it to be a fair, reasonable, and proportionate award.

The defendant lawyer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for solicitor negligence.

The plaintiff had retained the defendant to pursue a medical malpractice claim, but the defendant advised her to discontinue the action after an expert concluded there was no case.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages, alleging breach of trust and negligence, particularly regarding the administrative dismissal of her underlying action.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence of wrongdoing, breach of standard of care, or damages caused by the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a pre‑trial motion under Rule 21 seeking a determination of whether an insurer must respond to his claim arising from a motor vehicle collision involving the defendants.

The plaintiff argued that resolving the insurance coverage issue early would facilitate mediation and settlement discussions.

The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek declaratory relief regarding coverage because no cause of action existed against the insurer prior to obtaining judgment against the insured defendants under s. 258 of the Insurance Act.

The court also found the issues raised involved mixed questions of fact and law and were not raised by the pleadings.

The motion was therefore dismissed.