J. Strype

The plaintiff, an elderly pedestrian, was struck by a city bus and sustained injuries.

On the eve of trial, the plaintiff accepted a $25,000 settlement due to her declining health, with costs to be agreed or assessed.

The plaintiff sought over $124,000 in costs, while the defendants argued for $10,000 based on proportionality.

The court fixed costs at $96,780.93 on a partial indemnity basis, finding that the defendants' late admission of liability and the necessity of expert reports justified a costs award exceeding the settlement amount.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the jury due to the suspension of civil jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

After being advised by the court that a non-jury trial could proceed in March 2022 while a jury trial would be scheduled for June 2022, the plaintiff withdrew the motion.

No costs were ordered.

During a trial for damages arising from a train derailment, the plaintiff testified in-chief that he had no criminal record in Poland and filed a certified Polish document to that effect.

The defendants sought to cross-examine him using uncertified Polish court documents suggesting he had a criminal history.

The plaintiff objected, arguing the documents were uncertified and inadmissible under s. 23 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court ruled that s. 23 is permissive and does not preclude proving foreign documents at common law.

The court allowed the defence to use the uncertified documents in cross-examination to challenge the plaintiff's credibility, noting the plaintiff would have the opportunity to explain or challenge the documents' reliability.

The plaintiffs brought a motion shortly before trial alleging spoliation of video evidence by the defendant relating to a bus incident in which the plaintiff claimed injury due to driver negligence.

They sought to strike the defendant’s statement of defence, alternatively an adverse inference regarding the missing video, and exclusion of testimony from certain witnesses.

The court reviewed the governing principles of spoliation and emphasized that determinations regarding whether spoliation occurred and the appropriate remedy are generally best addressed by the trial judge.

Given the proximity of the trial and the intertwined nature of any potential remedy with the trial process, the motion was referred to the trial judge for determination.

Costs of the motion were reserved to the trial judge.