Lucy Lee

Following dismissal of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment seeking to strike a motor vehicle accident claim as statute-barred, the plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The motion had raised a novel issue concerning the interaction between discoverability and the plaintiffs’ admitted knowledge of the two‑year limitation period prior to its expiry.

The court held that the defendants were justified in bringing the motion given the claim’s lengthy procedural history and the legal uncertainty surrounding the limitation issue.

While the plaintiffs were entitled to costs as the successful party, the court found the hours claimed excessive and rejected substantial indemnity.

Costs were fixed at a reduced amount that was fair and reasonable to the unsuccessful party.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' motor vehicle accident claim as statute-barred, arguing the two-year limitation period had expired.

The plaintiffs argued the discoverability principle extended the limitation period because the plaintiff did not know her injuries met the statutory threshold until later.

The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding discoverability, noting that the plaintiff's initial concerns about her injuries were insufficient to start the limitation period without medical evidence establishing a serious and permanent impairment.

The motion was dismissed.

The infant plaintiff suffered a severe brain injury at birth in 2001.

The plaintiffs brought a timely action against several health practitioners.

In 2009, the plaintiffs' medical expert advised counsel of concerns regarding the infant's postnatal care, prompting a motion to add new defendants.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the claims were not discoverable before January 1, 2004, and were therefore statute-barred under the new Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the claims were discoverable before January 1, 2004, because a reasonable person acting as litigation guardian would have retained competent counsel to review the hospital records obtained in 2002.

Consequently, the former limitation period applied, which suspended the limitation period for minors, meaning the proposed claims were not statute-barred.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident after losing control of her car on an icy patch of a municipal road.

She sued the municipality for negligence, alleging a failure to adequately salt the road.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the municipality had met the standard of care by promptly salting the road, though light blowing snow delayed the salt's effectiveness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of fact were well-supported by the evidence and that the municipality had taken reasonable steps to address the winter road conditions.

The appellant held an automobile fleet insurance policy with the respondent insurer but failed to disclose that it had employed a driver with a record for impaired driving.

After the driver was involved in a serious accident, the insurer denied coverage for the claim.

The appellant argued that the insurer was required to void or cancel the policy rather than simply deny coverage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no support for the appellant's position and affirming that Standard OAP1 Policy s. 1.4 permits the insurer to deny claims when the insured fails to notify them of a significant change in risk.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision regarding a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued there were genuine issues for trial concerning where the injured party was seated and whether wearing a seat belt would have mitigated her damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to support the appellant's position on the seating location and agreeing with the motion judge that expert evidence showed a seat belt would have made no difference.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision, arguing there were two genuine issues for trial: where the passenger was seated during the crash, and the damages she would have suffered had she worn a seat belt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to support the appellant's position on the seating location and agreeing with the motion judge that expert evidence showed seat belt use would have made no difference.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.