Sari Feferman

The plaintiffs, a married couple, brought an action in negligence against their former solicitor for mishandling multiple personal injury claims.

The solicitor failed to defend the action and was noted in default, leading to an undefended trial for the assessment of damages.

The court found the solicitor's conduct deplorable, noting improvident settlements for motor vehicle accidents and a complete failure to issue a claim or apply for statutory accident benefits for a slip and fall incident.

The court awarded the plaintiffs significant damages for non-pecuniary losses, past loss of income, and Family Law Act claims.

The defendant in a civil action for sexual assault brought a motion seeking a declaration that he had not breached the deemed undertaking rule (Rule 30.1.01) or, alternatively, an order to exempt certain documents from it.

The defendant's civil counsel had provided the plaintiff's compelled documentary productions, including sensitive medical and counselling records, to his criminal defence counsel for use in parallel criminal proceedings to impeach the plaintiff's credibility, without prior notice or court directions.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the impeachment exception in Rule 30.1.01(6) is not automatic and requires parties to seek directions from the civil court, ordinarily on notice to the producing party, before using discovery evidence for impeachment in another proceeding.

The court found that the defendant had breached the deemed undertaking.

Following scheduling of a summary judgment motion over approximately $10,000 to $13,000 in income replacement benefits, the plaintiff withdrew the motion after producing information and the insurer agreed to pay the benefits sought, subject to a possible dispute over retroactive quantum.

Both sides sought costs.

The court held that both parties were responsible for disproportionate and inefficient motion practice, with the plaintiff slow to disclose relevant corporate structure information and the insurer demanding excessive production inconsistent with proportionality.

Emphasizing the required culture shift toward cooperative, proportionate litigation conduct, the court declined to award costs to either side.

In an accident benefits dispute, the plaintiff sought summary judgment for $13,000 in income replacement benefits after mediation had failed on that claim, while disputes over attendant care and medical rehabilitation benefits remained ongoing.

The insurer maintained that entitlement turned on whether the plaintiff was an employee or self-employed and sought additional employment-related information.

The court scheduled the summary judgment motion but emphasized proportionality, noting that the proposed process was not affordable relative to the amount in issue.

Counsel were directed to arrange a focused meeting with the insurer's financial advisor and the employer's president to resolve the factual dispute efficiently, with the court remaining available to assist summarily on consent.