J. Stephen O'Neill

Following the release of reasons on an earlier motion, the court determined the appropriate costs awards among insurers involved in a dispute regarding indemnity exposure.

The court applied s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the significance of the motion’s outcome and the potential insurance liability implications.

After reviewing the bills of costs and submissions, the court reduced certain claimed hours and adjusted the hourly rate for one party before fixing partial indemnity costs.

Costs were awarded in favour of two defendants against the proposed statutory third party.

The proposed statutory third party was ordered to pay the costs within 60 days.

The accused was charged with impaired operation causing death, operating with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg, and operating a motor vehicle while disqualified following a fatal snowmobile collision.

The principal issue at trial was whether the accused or the deceased passenger was driving the snowmobile immediately prior to the collision.

After a lengthy trial involving competing collision reconstruction experts, the court found the physical evidence, injury patterns, and scene analysis supported the Crown’s theory that the accused was driving and that the passenger had been ejected prior to the snowmobile striking a tree.

The court concluded the accused’s blood alcohol concentration was between 120 and 168 mg/100 mL and that his impaired operation was at least a contributing cause of the death.

The defence theories regarding collision mechanics, evidentiary deficiencies, and alleged investigative failures did not raise a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed a conviction for impaired operation after pleading guilty, arguing the plea was involuntary and constituted a miscarriage of justice.

He asserted his judgment was impaired by alcohol, lack of sleep, anxiety, and pressure arising from being held in custody pending bail.

Fresh evidence was heard from duty counsel, Crown counsel, a toxicologist, and the appellant.

The court held that the appellant understood the nature and consequences of the plea, received competent legal advice, and voluntarily chose to plead guilty despite advice not to do so.

Stress and desire for immediate release did not render the plea involuntary.

The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

The court considered a motion seeking determination of issues arising from pleadings alleging both intentional and negligent acts in a motor vehicle incident.

The moving party relied on the framework from prior Supreme Court authority addressing the characterization of intentional versus negligent conduct.

The court held that the pleadings and the driver’s guilty plea to dangerous driving did not permit a definitive characterization of the conduct at this early stage of the action.

Determining the issue without further evidentiary development risked injustice to the parties.

The motion was therefore dismissed as premature, without prejudice to renewal at a later stage.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim arising from a prior settlement involving the sale and transfer of property.

The court found that the plaintiff had executed minutes of settlement, a release, an agreement of purchase and sale, and a transfer, and had received the agreed payment in 2005.

Any alleged additional losses would have been discovered no later than November 1, 2005, making the claim subject to the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act.

Because the action was not commenced until August 28, 2008, it was statute-barred.

The court also held that a conspiracy claim could not succeed where only one defendant remained and noted that the remaining defendant acted only as a trustee of the property.

The action was dismissed on summary judgment without costs.