Katie Gauthier

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the parties brought motions and cross-motions to resolve outstanding undertakings, refusals, and a proposed pleading amendment.

The court denied the defendant's request for the plaintiff's CAS and medical records, noting the plaintiff limited her Family Law Act claim.

The court ordered the defendant to produce MTO records and witness contact information but denied the request for the deceased defendant's medical records.

Finally, the court granted the defendant Estate leave to amend its statement of defence to plead plene administravit, protecting the estate trustees from personal liability, without requiring further discovery.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation claim arising from negative online reviews they posted about the plaintiffs' construction businesses.

The court found that while the reviews related to a matter of public interest, there were grounds to believe the defamation claim had substantial merit and the defences of justification and fair comment would fail, partly due to evidence of malice.

The court concluded the harm suffered by the plaintiffs outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression, which appeared motivated by an attempt to force a deposit refund.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a former employee of Sun Life, sued his former manager for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and intentional interference with contractual relations after his employment was terminated.

The defendant manager moved to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead that the manager's actions exhibited an identity or interest separate from the employer, which is required to establish personal liability.

The statement of claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

The moving party sought approval of a settlement dismissing a third party claim without costs.

The court found multiple deficiencies in the motion record, including failure to properly cite the grounds for the motion, failure to include pleadings, and failure to address whether the third party defended the main action, which would trigger the requirement for court approval under Rule 7.08 due to a plaintiff being under disability.

The court also noted the draft order was deficient.

The motion was adjourned with directions to file a proper motion record.

Following the granting of summary judgment dismissing an action as statute‑barred, the court addressed outstanding issues regarding the quantum and procedure for awarding costs.

The plaintiffs sought to challenge the previously indicated costs amounts and requested further disclosure of supporting documentation.

The court held it retained jurisdiction to revisit the costs award because no formal order had yet been issued and the judicial officer was not functus.

The court fixed the costs of the summary judgment motion, including enhanced costs due to a reasonable offer to settle, but determined that the costs of the dismissed action required a separate assessment process due to overlapping proceedings.

Costs of the action were therefore ordered on a partial indemnity basis with quantum to be determined by agreement or assessment.

The plaintiff slipped and fell outside a Tim Horton's restaurant.

She initially sued only the franchisee.

More than two years after the accident, she commenced a second action against the landlord and the snow removal contractor.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred.

The court applied the new summary judgment framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin and found that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the potential liability of the landlord and snow removal contractor shortly after the accident.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the expiry of the limitation period and dismissed the action.