3 total
Motion for non-party production granted in part; SIU ordered to produce witness statements from police pursuit investigation.
The plaintiffs in two related civil actions arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident following a police pursuit brought motions under Rule 30.10 for the production of the complete investigative file of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), a non-party.
The SIU had produced parts of its file but opposed producing witness statements without consent and other administrative or derivative documents.
The court granted the motion in part, ordering the production of the civilian and police officer witness statements, finding them highly relevant to the issue of liability and that it would be unfair to require the plaintiffs to proceed to trial without them.
The court dismissed the motion regarding the balance of the file, as the plaintiffs failed to establish relevance.
Appeal dismissed; trial judge's finding that purchaser knew of environmental contamination before closing upheld.
The appellants purchased a commercial property that was later discovered to be contaminated.
They sued the vendor for failing to disclose the contamination and their real estate lawyer for negligence.
The trial judge dismissed the claims, finding that the purchaser actually knew about the contamination before waiving the environmental condition and closing the transaction, and had instructed the lawyer not to order further reports.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of credibility and findings of fact.
Summary judgment denied where settlement enforceability and unconscionability required trial.
The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment under Rule 20.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the plaintiff’s claim had already been settled and therefore no genuine issue required a trial.
The court held that the defendant failed to establish on the evidentiary record that a binding settlement existed or that the alleged settlement was not unconscionable.
Outstanding factual issues included whether the parties had reached a meeting of the minds, whether a signed release was an essential condition, and whether the plaintiff had adequate information and advice when negotiating the settlement with the insurer’s adjuster.
Applying the unconscionability framework from Titus v. William F. Cooke Enterprises Inc., the court found that the record was insufficient to determine the fairness of the transaction or the balance of bargaining power.
The court concluded that genuine issues requiring a trial remained.
