Nicholas A. Papas

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice in a motor vehicle accident claim due to systemic delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiffs, who were approximately 70 years old, argued that waiting for a jury trial would cause significant delay and prejudice.

The court applied recent appellate authority and found that the uncertainty of securing a jury trial date, combined with the plaintiffs' age and the relative expedience of a judge-alone trial, warranted striking the jury notice.

The motion was granted.

On the eve of a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident claim, the plaintiff brought a motion to exclude late-served video surveillance reports or, alternatively, for an adjournment.

The court found that the recent surveillance was not substantially different from previously disclosed surveillance and did not unfairly surprise the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the motion to exclude the evidence, granting the defendant leave to use the reports for substantive purposes subject to a mid-trial voir dire.

A short adjournment was granted to allow the plaintiff to review the new surveillance.

The applicant was driving his car when concrete debris fell from a building and struck his vehicle, causing him to hit his head on the roof.

The insurer denied statutory accident benefits, arguing the incident was not an 'accident' under the Schedule because the falling debris was an intervening act.

The arbitrator held that the incident met the definition of an accident, finding that falling debris is a normal incident of the risk created by the use or operation of an automobile, similar to road hazards, and not an intervening act like an assault.

The preliminary issue was resolved in favour of the applicant.