James McNamara

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the jury notice and sever their action from a companion action arising from a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs argued that the case was too complex for a jury and that delay, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, warranted a judge-alone trial.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the jury notice, finding insufficient evidence of case-specific prejudice or that an earlier trial date would be available for a judge-alone trial.

The court also dismissed the motion for severance, emphasizing the need to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings under section 138 of the Courts of Justice Act and noting common issues between the actions.

The defendant insurer brought two motions: one to be added as a statutory third party under s. 258(14) of the Insurance Act, and another to strike paragraphs in the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim seeking declaratory relief regarding the validity of the insurance policy.

The court granted the motion to be added as a statutory third party on consent.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the plaintiff had a tenable claim for declaratory relief regarding the enforceability of the policy, even without a direct cause of action against the insurer at this stage.

The applicant municipality sought an order to recommence an arbitration and appoint a new arbitrator to resolve a dispute over wastewater treatment costs.

The parties had previously executed Minutes of Settlement that included a specific dispute resolution process for issues arising from data collection.

The court found that the current dispute regarding allegedly flawed data fell squarely within the contemplation of the settlement agreement.

The application was dismissed, and the matter was directed to the specific individual granted exclusive jurisdiction under the settlement.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's civil action, which included claims for vehicle ownership, unjust enrichment, malicious prosecution, and defamation.

The parties had previously resolved their matrimonial dispute in family court, which included an order regarding the vehicle.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding that the plaintiff's civil claims were barred by cause of action estoppel under the doctrine of res judicata, as they arose from the same facts and ought to have been litigated in the family proceedings.

The parties, parents of a four-year-old child, sought final orders regarding custody, access, child support, travel, and the child's name.

The court maintained sole custody with the mother, finding the parents unable to communicate or cooperate.

The father was granted regular access, with pick-ups and drop-offs moved to public locations to reduce conflict.

The father was ordered to pay ongoing child support based on imputed income, with payment of arrears suspended until his income improves.

The court also ordered the child's surname be changed to include the father's surname, exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction.