Glen Bushi

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order to validate and extend the time to serve the statement of claim on the defendants, to substitute the named defendant from "Boyce Stewart" to "Stewart Boyce" due to misnomer, and to extend the set down date from June 19, 2025 to June 19, 2027.

The defendants opposed the motion.

The court found that the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for the delay caused by departure of counsel and subsequent misunderstanding about file carriage.

The court further found that the defendants suffered no prejudice or unfairness, as the parties had exchanged information through their insurers within days of the accident and continued to do so for approximately two years before the claim was issued.

The court granted the motion, validating service and extending the set down date, while ordering each party to bear its own costs.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision regarding her entitlement to attendant care benefits and home modifications under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued LAT erred in determining the applicable hourly rates, assessing her need for supervisory care, denying home modifications, and violating her Charter equality rights by distinguishing between mental and physical impairments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law, as LAT correctly applied the 1996 Schedule rates, provided adequate reasons for preferring the respondent's expert evidence, and appropriately applied the reasonable and necessary test for home modifications.

The Applicant sought an injunction and damages against the Respondents for nuisance, trespass, and interference with a mutual right-of-way easement during a construction project on the Respondents' adjacent property.

The court found that the Respondents committed nuisance and repeated trespasses, which were not trivial, and awarded damages and punitive damages.

However, the court did not find actionable encroachment on the easement, concluding that temporary impediments did not constitute substantial interference.

An injunction was granted to prevent future trespass during the remaining construction.

The plaintiff's action for damages from a motor vehicle accident was dismissed after a jury award for lost income and general damages was netted to zero due to deductions for income replacement benefits and the statutory deductible.

The defendants, being wholly successful, sought partial indemnity costs of $160,000.

The plaintiff argued costs should be limited to her $100,000 adverse costs insurance policy and that the defendant's settlement offers were unreasonable.

The court found adverse costs insurance irrelevant and the defendant's settlement offers reasonable, fixing costs at $160,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable by the plaintiff.