Janet Clermont

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for a declaration that Economical Insurance held a valid and enforceable policy for a vehicle involved in a motor vehicle accident that caused catastrophic injuries to one of the plaintiffs.

Economical brought a cross-motion for a declaration that any claim regarding the accident was invalid and the right of recovery forfeited, citing the insured's failure to disclose material changes in risk, including the driver's G2 license status, a license suspension, and exclusive possession of the vehicle.

The court found that significant credibility issues regarding the driver's residency and vehicle use precluded a determination by summary judgment.

Instead of dismissing the motions, the court directed a "mini-trial" under Rule 20.04(2.2) to resolve these specific factual disputes.

The applicant sought judicial approval for negotiated settlements in a tort action and an accident benefits claim for a person under disability.

The motion combined both requests and was brought in writing.

The court found the motion procedurally deficient because, while a motion for tort settlement approval can be heard in writing on consent, an application for accident benefits settlement approval for a person under disability (when no formal proceeding has commenced) requires an oral hearing under Rules 7.08(3) and 38.

The court declined to address the substantive relief and dismissed the motion, advising the parties to separate the requests or seek formal relief from the oral hearing requirement for the application.

The moving defendants brought a motion in writing to amend an earlier order that authorized substitute service of their statement of defence, crossclaim, and counterclaim on a co-defendant.

They sought to extend the time for service, believing it was necessary because the plaintiffs had already noted the co-defendant in default.

The court dismissed the motion as misconceived and unnecessary, clarifying that the relevant rules restrict delivery only if the moving defendants themselves had been noted in default, which had not occurred.

Valid service had already been effected under the terms of the original order.

The co-defendants Nathan Moore and Tracy Moore brought a motion for substitute service of their Statement of Defence, Crossclaim, Counterclaim, and Jury Notice on their co-defendant Charlie Johnston.

Despite multiple unsuccessful attempts at personal service and alternative service under Rule 16.03, the court found that Johnston was effectively evading service.

The motion was granted, permitting substitute service by regular post to his father's residence and his own property, as this method was deemed likely to bring the pleading to his attention.

The court also clarified that a formal time extension for service was unnecessary under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Three sets of defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims arising from a 30-vehicle winter highway pileup.

The court granted the motion for one defendant (Seney), finding his vehicle was far removed from the main collision and did not contribute to the plaintiffs' injuries.

However, the court dismissed the motions for the other two defendants (Gill and McCallum), holding that while the case against them was not strong, granting partial summary judgment posed a significant risk of inconsistent verdicts at trial, as a jury could still apportion liability to them for allegedly blocking escape routes.

The defendant Amy L. Patterson moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action and cross-claim against her following a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff took no position.

The court granted leave for the motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding Ms. Patterson's liability.

The evidence indicated that Ms. Patterson, who had the right of way, could not have avoided the collision, which occurred too quickly.

The motion was granted, dismissing the action and cross-claim against Ms. Patterson, and costs were awarded to her.