4 total
The court dismissed the defendant's motion to transfer the personal injury action from Hamilton to Toronto, finding the proposed venue was not significantly better.
The defendant Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) brought a motion to transfer a personal injury action from the Central South Region (Hamilton) to the Toronto Region, pursuant to Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff opposed the motion.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the TTC failed to establish that the proposed Toronto venue was "significantly better" than the plaintiff's chosen Hamilton venue, or that the transfer was desirable in the interest of justice, especially given the late stage of the proceedings and potential prejudice to the plaintiff.
Leave to examine second corporate representative for discovery denied.
In a personal injury action arising from a car–train collision, the plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 31.03(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave to examine a second representative of a railway defendant for discovery.
The defendant had already produced a signal inspector responsible for inspecting and maintaining the railway crossing involved in the collision.
The moving party argued that another representative, possibly a general manager, should be examined regarding decisions about upgrading signal equipment and crossing design.
The court held that the moving party had already conducted an extensive examination and had not sought undertakings to obtain further information.
It was not established that satisfactory answers could not be obtained from a single representative without undue expense and inconvenience.
The motion for leave to examine a second representative was therefore dismissed with costs.
Insurer's refusal to participate in mandatory mediation warrants a significant remedial costs penalty.
The appellants successfully sued the respondents for damages from a motor vehicle accident.
Prior to trial, the respondents' insurer twice refused the appellants' requests to participate in mandatory mediation under the Insurance Act, claiming the injuries did not meet the statutory threshold.
The trial judge awarded partial indemnity costs, finding the insurer's refusal was a genuine available position.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that participating in mediation is a mandatory statutory obligation with no exceptions.
The Court increased the trial costs award by $40,000 as a remedial penalty for the insurer's failure to mediate.
Appeal allowed extending time for service of statement of claim; prejudice not caused by delay.
The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their motion to extend the time for service of their statement of claim regarding a motor vehicle accident.
The motion judge had refused the extension, finding the defendants would suffer prejudice because their motor vehicle insurance had been cancelled prior to the accident, leaving them personally liable.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the delay in serving the statement of claim did not cause this prejudice and did not affect the defendants' ability to maintain a defence on the merits.
The time for service was extended.
