5 total
The court granted default judgment to the plaintiffs for property damage caused by negligent roof repairs.
The plaintiffs, William and Rhodean Weiser, brought a motion for default judgment against Hussein (Sam) Sumaida and his sole proprietorships (collectively 'Sam and Crew') for damages resulting from a flood caused by negligent roof repairs.
The defendants had failed to defend the proceeding and were noted in default.
The court applied the test for default judgment, finding the defendants liable for both negligence and breach of contract based on deemed admissions and supporting evidence.
The plaintiffs were awarded damages totaling $60,896.89 plus interest and costs.
A motion in writing to set aside a noting in default requires notices of non-opposition from all affected co-defendants.
The defendant Roberts Bros.
Sheet Metal Contractors Ltd. (RBSMC) brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and permit the filing of a statement of defence and crossclaim.
The court declined to sign the requested order because RBSMC failed to comply with Rule 37.12.1(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a notice of non-opposition from all responding parties for an "unopposed" motion to proceed in writing.
The court emphasized that co-defendants are also affected parties, particularly when crossclaims are contemplated, and their formal non-opposition is necessary, unlike the simpler procedure under Rule 19.03(2) which relies solely on plaintiff consent.
The court provided guidance on alternative procedural routes for RBSMC to pursue the motion.
The court denied a motion by non-settling defendants to preemptively dictate trial procedures regarding settling defendants in a Pierringer order.
This decision addresses a motion by non-settling defendants (Watts Water Technologies) to expand a Pierringer Agreement order.
The non-settling defendants sought to include provisions allowing them to use discovery transcripts of settling defendants at trial, serve requests to admit, and compel testimony from settling defendant representatives.
The court denied these requests, finding them premature and matters best left to the trial judge's discretion.
The court emphasized that a model order for class actions should be tailored to specific circumstances and not automatically applied to non-class actions.
Application for accident benefits dismissed after applicant failed to attend pre-hearing and counsel removed.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits.
At a pre-hearing, the applicant participated briefly by telephone from Sri Lanka, but his identity could not be confirmed and he failed to attend the resumed in-person pre-hearing.
The applicant's legal representative brought a motion to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, which was granted.
Due to the applicant's failure to attend the resumed pre-hearing, the arbitrator dismissed the application for arbitration as frivolous, vexatious, and/or commenced in bad faith pursuant to Rule 68.1 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.
Insurer awarded $3,199.17 in expenses following the dismissal of the applicant's arbitration application.
The insurer sought expenses following the dismissal of the applicant's application for arbitration for statutory accident benefits.
The applicant did not respond to the request for expenses.
The arbitrator awarded the insurer $3,199.17 in expenses, finding that the insurer was completely successful and the applicant's conduct prolonged the proceeding.
The arbitrator disallowed $238.00 claimed for official examiners' fees as they were not allowable under the Expense Regulation.
