Leonard Collier

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice due to delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The action arose from an alleged assault at a festival in 2015.

The court considered the severe backlog of civil jury trials in the Central East Region and the prejudice to the plaintiff from open-ended delay.

The court provisionally struck the jury notice and ordered the matter placed on the non-jury trial list for the May 2021 sittings, with leave for the defendants to move to restore the jury notice if the matter is not reached.

This was a costs decision following a summary judgment motion in an insurance consent dispute arising from a motor vehicle accident.

Although the moving defendant ultimately succeeded on the underlying motion and had served favourable offers to settle, the court held the motion process was unnecessary because he failed for years to answer undertakings and produce contemporaneous insurer communications that would likely have resolved the coverage dispute earlier.

Applying the costs discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and the Rule 57.01 factors, with particular emphasis on whether an unnecessary step was taken, the court awarded costs against the moving defendant to the insurer respondent.

The decision emphasizes the post-Hryniak culture shift requiring timely disclosure and cooperative, proportionate litigation conduct.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Alberta involving Alberta residents.

He returned to Ontario, where he received medical treatment and suffered ongoing damages.

He sued the defendants in Ontario, serving them outside the jurisdiction under Rule 17.02(h).

The defendants moved to stay the action, arguing the rule was ultra vires and that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or was forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Rule 17.02(h) is procedural and constitutional.

The court established an eight-factor test for determining whether a real and substantial connection exists to assume jurisdiction over out-of-province defendants, concluding that jurisdiction was properly assumed and Ontario was the appropriate forum.