Patricia Lawson

The plaintiffs brought a motion to implement a Pierringer settlement agreement with 18 of the defendants following a multi-vehicle collision, and to strike the jury notice filed by the non-settling defendants due to anticipated COVID-19 trial delays.

The court granted the order implementing the settlement with some modifications to the proposed terms, including a mechanism to enforce the settling defendants' discovery obligations.

The motion to strike the jury notice was dismissed as premature, as no pre-trial conference had yet occurred to determine the expected length of the trial.

The defendants, Hydro One and two neighbours, brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' actions.

The plaintiffs had erected a fence on city property, which the city later ordered removed.

The plaintiffs sued Hydro One for negligence regarding the location of underground services and the neighbours for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of mental distress based on complaints made to the city.

The court granted the motions, finding the claim against Hydro One was statute-barred and lacked merit, and the claim against the neighbours was devoid of merit as there was no evidence of intent to cause harm or damages.

Following a partially successful appeal, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The appellant was awarded $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes for the costs of the appeal.

The costs of the trial were reserved to the trial judge hearing the new trial.

The appellant was injured when the respondent lost control of his vehicle on an icy road, crossed the centre line, and struck the appellant's stopped vehicle.

At trial, the respondent did not testify, and the jury found no negligence on his part, dismissing the action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on liability, holding that crossing the centre line in breach of the Highway Traffic Act establishes a prima facie case of negligence.

Absent any explanation from the respondent to negate this evidence, the jury's verdict was unreasonable.