Jay A. Skukowski

The plaintiffs and a successful co-defendant sought costs following a summary judgment motion that determined liability for a chain-reaction motor vehicle accident.

The unsuccessful defendants argued that costs should not be awarded until damages were resolved and disputed the scale of costs.

The court held that liability costs could be fixed immediately and awarded partial indemnity costs to both the plaintiffs and the successful co-defendant, as the parties seeking substantial indemnity costs failed to provide evidence of their formal offers to settle.

The defendant landlord moved for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff had sued a nightclub within the limitation period after falling from an elevated dance floor but only later added the landlord after discovering during examinations for discovery that the landlord participated in the design and construction of the stage.

The court considered the discoverability provisions under s. 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002 and the extent of reasonable pre-discovery investigation required of plaintiff’s counsel in occupiers’ liability claims.

The court held that the plaintiff was not required to seek information from adverse parties before discovery where those parties had no obligation to provide it.

The limitation period began when the plaintiff first learned of the landlord’s involvement during discovery, rendering the action timely.

In a multi-vehicle “chain reaction” collision case, the plaintiffs and two co‑defendants moved for summary judgment seeking a determination that the rear driver and vehicle owner were solely liable and that the other drivers did not contribute to the accident.

The motion judge considered evidence including a police accident report, transcripts from a related Highway Traffic Act prosecution, and discovery transcripts.

Applying the summary judgment principles articulated in Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court held that the evidentiary record permitted a fair and just determination without a trial.

The court found that the rear driver failed to rebut the presumption of negligence applicable to rear‑end collisions and rejected his inconsistent version of events.

Liability was therefore imposed on the rear driver and the vehicle owner, while the other drivers were found not liable.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order granted by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that on the undisputed facts, the respondent was entitled to summary judgment based on the authority of Finlayson v. GMAC Leaseco Ltd.

The appellant, having successfully appealed a Divisional Court decision, sought substantial indemnity costs of over $39,000 for the appeal and leave to appeal.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded due to the novelty and broader importance of the issues raised, or alternatively, that costs should be modest given the Small Claims Court origin.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the respondent that the costs award should be modest.

The court reinstated the Small Claims Court costs of $1,150, awarded Divisional Court costs of $1,200, and fixed the costs of the appeal and leave application at $2,500, all payable to the appellant.

The plaintiff brought a Small Claims Court action against a court-appointed family law assessor, alleging breach of contract and negligence.

The defendant successfully moved to strike the claim on the basis of expert witness immunity and the expiry of the limitation period.

The Divisional Court overturned the decision, finding that the motion judge erred by making findings of fact on a summary judgment motion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that while summary judgment motions are not available under the Small Claims Court Rules, the motion judge's decision was sustainable under rule 12.02 as a motion to strike a claim that is a waste of time.