Kenneth Raddatz

Following a trial where the plaintiff's negligence action was dismissed on causation, the successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $60,000.

The court considered the plaintiff's success on the issues of duty of care, breach, and foreseeability, which consumed significant trial time.

The court also factored in the economic disparity between the personal plaintiff and the insurer-backed defendants, who refused to mediate or make a Rule 49 offer.

After deducting the plaintiff's costs thrown away from two trial adjournments and the costs of an expert witness whose testimony would have been unnecessary had the defendants complied with statutory requirements, the court reduced the remaining costs by 50% to reflect the plaintiff's partial success on the issues.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay costs of $13,743.92.

The plaintiff was assaulted by two unknown individuals in the stairwell of a municipal parking garage.

He sued the city and its contracted security company for negligence and breach of the Occupiers' Liability Act, alleging inadequate security measures.

The court found that both defendants owed a duty of care and breached it by failing to conduct threat/risk assessments, install video cameras in stairwells, or implement adequate security patrols.

However, the action was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove causation; the assault lasted only 30 seconds, meaning it could not have been prevented even if proper security measures had been in place.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision, the plaintiffs brought a motion after the matter had been set down for trial seeking a sworn affidavit of documents, production of surveillance materials, particulars regarding surveillance activities, and related disclosure orders.

The court considered the interaction between Rule 48.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the mandatory disclosure obligations under Rule 30.03.

It held that leave was not required to compel service of a sworn affidavit of documents or to seek production of surveillance materials under Rule 30.04(5), though leave was required for certain discovery-related requests.

The court further held that disclosure of two surveillance reports constituted an implied waiver of litigation privilege over a third report relating to the same surveillance subject matter.

Orders were made requiring service of a sworn affidavit of documents, production of existing surveillance materials, and provision of specified surveillance particulars, while requests for future surveillance disclosure and foundational investigative materials were dismissed.