J. Ralston

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a negligence action arising from a tractor rollover that injured the plaintiff while performing landscaping work on a cottage property.

The property owner argued she met her duties under the Occupiers’ Liability Act by relying on an independent contractor, while another defendant denied any supervisory relationship with the plaintiff or responsibility for the tractor’s use.

The court held that numerous material facts were in dispute, including the relationships among the parties, supervision of the work, and instructions provided regarding the tractor.

The evidence raised significant credibility issues and complex questions regarding occupiers’ liability, negligence, and duty of care.

Applying the principles in Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court concluded that the matter could not be fairly resolved on summary judgment and required a full trial.

Following dismissal of a civil action after a 14‑day trial, the successful defendants sought costs.

The plaintiff, now self‑represented, failed to attend the costs hearing and provided written submissions that were unresponsive and contained scandalous allegations attacking credibility findings and the integrity of the trial process.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) and the consequences of a Rule 49.10 offer to settle, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The court reduced certain time entries and disallowed costs related to an appeal but otherwise accepted the defendants’ bill of costs.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay fixed costs exceeding $870,000.

The plaintiff was injured in a boating accident involving two defendants.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff entered into a Mary Carter agreement with one defendant, receiving a settlement of $365,000 for damages.

At trial, the jury assessed total damages at $312,021 and apportioned liability between the plaintiff and both defendants.

The trial judge refused to deduct the settlement amount from the damage award and ordered the non-settling defendant to pay his proportionate share.

The non-settling defendant appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the settlement monies must be deducted from the total damage award to prevent double recovery.

Since the settlement exceeded the total damages assessed, the action against the non-settling defendant was dismissed.