Brian Murphy

The appellants appealed a case conference endorsement and order of a master concerning discovery scheduling and responsibility for costs after examinations for discovery were cancelled due to hazardous winter weather conditions.

The appellants argued that a discovery plan under Rule 29.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure superseded the timetable, that sanctions under Rule 34.15 applied to counsel’s non‑attendance, and that the master failed to properly consider weather evidence.

The court held that no valid written discovery plan existed and that the master’s timetable governed the order of examinations.

Rule 34.15 applies only to the conduct of the person being examined, not to counsel conducting the examination.

Finding no error of law, misapprehension of evidence, or improper exercise of discretion, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the master’s conclusions.

The appellant was involved in a motor vehicle accident before the Limitations Act, 2002 came into force, but was sued by the respondents after it came into force.

The appellant sought to add counterclaims for contribution and indemnity against one of the respondents and two new parties.

The motion judge dismissed the request, finding the two-year limitation period under the new Act had expired.

On appeal, the appellant argued the transition provisions of the new Act applied because he discovered his claims on the date of the accident.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a claim for contribution and indemnity is based on the failure of concurrent tortfeasors to pay their fair share, which did not occur until after the new Act came into force.

Therefore, the transition provisions did not apply and the new Act's limitation periods governed.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict arising from a motor vehicle accident, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and that the respondent's counsel made a prejudicial jury address.

The Court of Appeal held that it was open to the jury to conclude the respondent steered into the oncoming lane to avoid an unidentified vehicle.

The court also found that a factual error in the respondent's jury address did not prejudice the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.