Dagmara Wozniak

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend a defence neuropsychological assessment and to extend the time for service of the resulting expert report.

The motion was brought after the deadline for serving expert reports under the agreed timetable and the Rules of Civil Procedure had passed.

Applying the amended Rule 53.08(1), the court found that the defendant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in scheduling the examination.

The motion was dismissed, emphasizing the strict enforcement of expert report deadlines to prevent trial delays.

The plaintiffs, a son and daughter-in-law, took over the operation of the defendants' family dairy farm based on an understanding that they would eventually acquire the farm and milk quota on favourable terms.

After six years of operating the dairy and making significant investments of time and money, the relationship broke down and the plaintiffs were forced to leave.

The plaintiffs sued for unjust enrichment and proprietary estoppel.

The court found that the defendants were unjustly enriched by certain improvements to the property and that the elements of proprietary estoppel were met because the plaintiffs reasonably relied on the defendants' assurances to their detriment.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $405,000 in damages, while allowing $2,000 on the defendants' counterclaim for property damage.

The respondents brought a motion for an order authorizing the named Estate Trustee to complete the sale of the deceased's property to bona fide third-party purchasers.

The applicant, who was challenging the validity of the will, opposed the motion, arguing that an estate trustee during litigation should complete the sale instead.

The court granted the motion, finding that the named Estate Trustee owed no fiduciary duties to the applicant until the will was proven invalid, and that delaying the sale would be detrimental to the estate and the purchasers.

The plaintiffs, a mother and son, were injured in a low-speed motor vehicle accident.

The son claimed the accident caused chronic pain syndrome and depression, disabling him from his employment as a security technician.

The mother claimed the accident caused a left shoulder impairment that prevented her from performing housekeeping and self-care.

The court found both plaintiffs met the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act, having sustained permanent serious impairments of important functions.

The court awarded damages for pain and suffering, past and future income loss, future care, and housekeeping/attendant care.

The estate trustee brought an application for directions regarding a will that granted the respondent a 'home' for his 'lifetime' or until he was 'no longer living' there.

The court had to determine whether the will granted a life estate or a licence, and whether the condition of 'no longer living' in the home was void for uncertainty.

The court found that the will granted a licence to occupy the home, not a life estate.

Furthermore, the condition subsequent 'no longer living' was found to be void for uncertainty.

Because the interest was a licence, the failure of the condition subsequent caused the entire gift to fail, and the property was ordered to be sold with proceeds going to the residual charity beneficiary.

The plaintiff contractor brought a construction lien action for the unpaid balance of a metal roof installation contract, plus an alleged oral contract for extra work.

The defendant homeowner counterclaimed for damages, alleging extensive negligence and breach of contract in the roof's installation.

The court found the contractor substantially completed the work and dismissed the claim for the oral extra.

The court found minor functional and cosmetic deficiencies, awarding the homeowner $4,000 in damages to be set off against the $10,000 contract balance, resulting in a net payment of $6,000 to the contractor.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages against his former partner, several police officers, and the police services board for negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, false arrest, and Charter breaches arising from two arrests related to a property dispute.

The court found that two officers lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the plaintiff for break and enter and breach of recognizance, respectively, and failed to conduct adequate investigations.

The court held the two officers and the police services board liable for negligent investigation and false arrest, awarding $40,192 in damages.

The claims for malicious prosecution and the claims against the former partner and other officers were dismissed.

The defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury claims arising from his arrest, arguing the plaintiff failed to serve expert reports on the standard of care and causation.

The court dismissed the motion primarily due to its late timing, as it was brought shortly before the scheduled trial.

Additionally, the court noted that expert evidence might not be strictly necessary, as the standard of care could potentially be determined from video evidence and causation could be inferred without scientific proof.

Following dismissal of a civil action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs based on both a prior settlement offer and the plaintiff’s alleged reprehensible conduct.

The court held that elevated costs were warranted due to the plaintiff’s abusive litigation conduct and misuse of the court’s process to harass the defendant.

While acknowledging the plaintiff’s asserted financial hardship, the court emphasized that impecuniosity generally does not shield a litigant from adverse costs.

Applying the overriding principle of reasonableness, the court reduced the amount sought and fixed substantial indemnity costs at $14,000.