Larry Peter Reimer

The plaintiffs sought compensation for injuries sustained by Sandra Bernier during a cycling event.

The defendants and third party brought summary judgment motions, arguing the action was barred by a signed waiver and voluntary assumption of risk.

The court found the waiver enforceable against the plaintiff, including her children's claims under the Family Law Act, and that it covered the alleged negligence, including negligent organization and road maintenance.

The court also found the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk.

The summary judgment motions were granted, and the action was dismissed.

The defendants sought costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff argued that he brought the action in good faith, suffers from a head injury, and has limited income.

The court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants at $10,000 all inclusive on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff, previously declared a vexatious litigant, brought a motion seeking retroactive leave under s. 140(4) of the Courts of Justice Act to commence and continue an action against the police board and several officers for false arrest and related claims.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's history of litigation against the police and the evidence provided in support of the current claim.

The court found that while the proceeding was not an abuse of process, the plaintiff failed to meet the onus of showing reasonable grounds for the proceeding, as he provided only a bald affidavit adopting the statement of claim and failed to refute police disclosure records indicating he was intoxicated and caused a disturbance.

The motion for leave was dismissed.

On appeal from a summary judgment decision, the Court of Appeal considered whether a motion judge properly granted judgment to the plaintiff in the absence of a cross-motion, whether hearsay evidence was improperly admitted on the summary judgment motion, and whether the defendant occupier breached its statutory duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The plaintiff was injured when he tripped over a skateboard in a shopping mall food court.

The motion judge granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff on liability, directing a trial only on damages assessment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge acted unfairly by granting judgment not requested by the plaintiff, improperly admitted hearsay evidence on contested issues, and erred in finding liability.

The Court granted summary judgment dismissing the action.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking payment of over $5.1 million in outstanding invoices for bitumen supplied to the defendant.

The defendant argued the claim was partially statute-barred and that the parties had entered into a new agreement allowing the defendant to withhold payment to set off costs from alleged roadway deficiencies caused by the plaintiff's product.

The court found the claim was not statute-barred, as the limitation period began 30 days after the statement was delivered.

However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the existence of the new agreement and ordered a mini-trial on that issue.

The plaintiff fell from the flatbed of a pick-up truck operated by the defendant, a teammate, after a parade.

The plaintiff sued the driver and the hockey club.

The plaintiff's claim against the club was dismissed on consent.

The driver cross-claimed against the club for contribution and indemnity, alleging the club failed to ensure players were safely transported back to the arena.

The club moved for summary judgment to dismiss the cross-claim.

The court found that even if a duty of care existed, there was no breach of the standard of care, as the plaintiff was an adult who voluntarily chose to walk instead of riding the club's float back.

The motion was granted and the cross-claim dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to preserve $2 million seized by the RCMP in related criminal proceedings, which had previously been ordered paid into court in the civil proceedings.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's counterclaim under Rule 21.

The RCMP brought a motion to quash a summons directed at an RCMP officer to provide evidence for a pending contempt motion.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, dismissed the motion to strike the counterclaim, and dismissed the RCMP's motion to quash the summons, providing directions for obtaining the necessary documents.

The plaintiff sued ten fuel providers for losses arising from fraudulent fuel card transactions.

The defendants brought motions to sever the proceedings.

The parties agreed to sever the claims against the Imperial defendants and stay the remaining claims pending the outcome of the Imperial action.

Shell brought a separate motion to stay the action against it based on a forum selection clause designating Alberta as the exclusive jurisdiction.

The court dismissed Shell's motion, finding that the policy against a multiplicity of proceedings constituted 'strong cause' to override the forum selection clause.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondents $393,431.99 in damages arising from a water slide accident that caused the respondent to suffer a head injury and chronic migraines.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's calculation of future loss of income and future medication costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the future loss of income award, finding no palpable and overriding error, but reduced the future care costs by $10,000 to account for the expected decreased cost of medication due to generic competition.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The appellants challenged orders refusing to set aside a default judgment.

The Court of Appeal held that both motion judges properly exercised their discretion in assessing prejudice, delay, and procedural fairness.

The court accepted that the insurer had recourse against its insured under s. 258 of the Insurance Act and found no basis to interfere with the conclusion that setting aside the judgment would cause greater prejudice to the respondents.

The appeals were dismissed with costs.