Kevin Wolf

The defendants moved to adjourn a lengthy personal injury trial arising from a 2014 motor vehicle accident, citing late service of expert reports and outstanding productions by the plaintiffs.

The court considered the principles for adjournment, including the objective of a just determination on merits and potential prejudice.

While some late reports for one plaintiff (Khadim) were not sufficient for adjournment, a recently served psycho-vocational report for the other plaintiff (Khan) indicating complete unemployability was deemed significant.

The court found that the defendants would be prejudiced if they could not adequately respond to this new evidence.

Despite the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on trial scheduling, the motion to adjourn was granted to ensure a fair trial on the merits, vacating the fixed trial date.

This endorsement addresses the costs of two unsuccessful summary judgment motions brought by the Allan Star defendants and Ms. Samuel, which were dismissed due to genuine issues for trial regarding the plaintiff's credibility.

The plaintiffs sought $75,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the defendants proposed $30,000.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $55,000 in partial indemnity costs, payable two-thirds by the Allan Star defendants and one-third by Ms. Samuel.

The decision considered factors under Rule 57.01, including the result, stakes, complexity, parties' conduct, and the reasonable expectations of costs, noting that the defendants' own costs outlines were an objective indicator of what they could expect to pay.

The plaintiffs, George MacPherson and his minor daughter Sierra, brought an action for damages after George MacPherson suffered a serious back injury falling from a roof.

The defendants, including the homeowner (Samuel) and roofing contractors (Allan Star Roofing Ltd. and Ebrahim Khezri), moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them.

The court dismissed both summary judgment motions, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, particularly concerning witness credibility regarding the provision of safety equipment and knowledge of unsafe conditions.

The court emphasized that it was not in the interest of justice to grant partial summary judgment due to the risk of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent factual findings, especially given the presence of a jury notice.

The parties appealed a master’s decision concerning defence medical examinations in a personal injury action involving a minor who sustained serious injuries after falling from an apartment window.

The master granted leave for a second motion and ordered the plaintiff to attend a defence neuropsychological assessment, with the plaintiff’s mother required to participate by questionnaire and interview.

The master refused to order an in‑home future care cost assessment by a nurse practitioner.

On appeal, the court held the master made no reviewable error, finding the neuropsychological assessment was justified to respond to the plaintiff’s expert evidence and that the second motion was not barred by res judicata or abuse of process.

The refusal to order the in‑home assessment was upheld because the proposed assessor was not a statutory “health practitioner” and the evidence did not demonstrate necessity.