Laura Jane Hillyer

This costs endorsement followed a ruling on a status hearing where the plaintiffs' proposed timetable for the action was accepted, and the defendants' request for dismissal was denied.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $10,668.15.

The physician defendants argued for no costs, while the hospital defendants accepted the quantum but requested apportionment.

The court found the plaintiffs were the successful party on the status hearing and were entitled to costs.

The court deemed the claimed costs reasonable and apportioned them, with the hospital defendants paying $2,668.15 and the physician defendants paying $8,000.00.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to prevent the dismissal of their medical malpractice action for delay under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court applied the two-fold test from *Kara v. Arnold*, requiring an acceptable explanation for delay and no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The court found the plaintiffs provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, citing the complexity of medical malpractice actions, financial difficulties of the lead plaintiff, and some lack of cooperation from defendants in scheduling discoveries.

The court also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants, as documents were exchanged and witnesses were available.

The motion was granted, and a timetable was set for the action to proceed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an order that the trial of a motor vehicle negligence action against the provincial transportation authority proceed in Hamilton rather than Peterborough, where the accident occurred.

The claim alleged highway disrepair under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

The court considered the statutory presumption under s. 33(9) that such actions be tried in the county where the default occurred, alongside the discretionary factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

After weighing the location of witnesses, the plaintiffs’ disabilities, the location of treating professionals, and the comparative convenience and costs of each venue, the court concluded that the interests of justice favoured Hamilton.

The presumption in favour of the accident location was rebutted due to the significant hardship and logistical inefficiencies associated with holding the trial in Peterborough.