Emily A. Schatzker

The self-represented plaintiff in a condominium dispute moved for the appointment of an amicus curiae to assist her in litigating the matter, citing her mental illness.

She provided a letter from her psychiatrist stating she was capable of instructing counsel but would benefit from an amicus.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff was not a party under a disability requiring a litigation guardian and that the role of an amicus is to assist the court, not to act as state-funded legal counsel for a party.

The court noted the plaintiff's disability would be accommodated during the proceedings.

On a summary judgment motion in a negligence action arising from two motor vehicle collisions and an alleged commercial host claim, the moving defendant sought dismissal of a co-defendant's crossclaim for contribution and indemnity after the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their direct claim against it.

The court rejected a technical argument that no valid crossclaim existed, holding that the insurer added under s. 258(14) of the Insurance Act had introduced the insured defendant's crossclaim into the main action.

Applying the Hryniak framework and Rule 20, the court held there was a genuine issue requiring a trial because the intoxicated driver's inconsistent but live evidence about alcohol service at the restaurant had to be weighed.

The court also declined to use enhanced summary judgment fact-finding powers or order a mini-trial, finding that doing so would not fairly and proportionately resolve the litigation as a whole.