Philip Garbutt

Following a motion for the production of documents in a motor vehicle accident case that resulted in divided success, the court received written submissions on costs.

The defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the plaintiffs submitted there should be no costs in accordance with the court's preliminary view.

The court found the defendant's position unreasonable, noting it was not significantly more successful than the plaintiffs and there was no conduct justifying an enhanced scale.

The court ordered no costs for the motion.

The defendant in a motor vehicle accident action brought a motion for production of the plaintiff's long-term disability file, statutory accident benefits file, and employment file.

The court ordered production of the long-term disability file and employment file, finding them relevant to the plaintiff's claims for income loss and physical disability, subject to redactions for personal information in the employment file.

The request for the statutory accident benefits file was dismissed, as the plaintiff had already produced the portions in their possession, and the defendant was directed to bring a Rule 30.10 motion against the independent adjuster for any remaining documents.

The appellants purchased a house from the respondent vendors and subsequently discovered defects.

They sued the vendors for fraud and the home inspector for negligence.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action against all defendants.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the appellants' expert evidence was insufficient to ground a fraud claim against the vendors, and that the home inspector's report clearly identified defects and limitations.

The court also rejected the appellants' claim of reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appeal was dismissed.