Linda Matthews

The defendant insurance company brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay, arguing that the plaintiff's inordinate and inexcusable delay in advancing the litigation created a substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to restore the action to the trial list and to compel the defendant to attend examination for discovery.

The court found that while delay was inordinate, it was excusable because the defendant's former counsel was primarily responsible for the delay by failing to serve a sworn affidavit of documents despite three court orders.

The court found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendant and restored the action to the trial list.

The plaintiff's motion to compel discovery was dismissed to avoid further delay.

The plaintiff sued multiple defendants for a serious workplace injury sustained when her arm was caught in a turret winder.

The defendant manufacturer, GN Gear, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and the co-defendants' crossclaims against it, arguing it only manufactured the machine to specifications and had no role in its design.

The court dismissed the motion against the plaintiff, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the interwoven nature of the design and manufacturing process due to reverse engineering, and the risk of inconsistent findings if partial summary judgment were granted.

The unopposed motion to dismiss the crossclaims was granted.

The moving party, a used car dealership, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the main action and crossclaim against it arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff was severely injured when a tire exploded while pushing a vehicle purchased from the moving party.

The responding party relied on the implied condition of merchantability under the Sale of Goods Act, alleging the vehicle's electronic traction control system was defective at the time of sale.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the operability of the traction control system at the time of sale and the risk of inconsistent findings of fact.

The defendants sought summary judgment dismissing claims arising from a motor vehicle accident following a cottage birthday party where alcohol was consumed.

The plaintiffs alleged the property owners were liable as social hosts and as occupiers of premises, arguing they failed to prevent intoxicated driving and failed to address rocks allegedly obstructing a right-of-way.

The court held the property owners were not social hosts because they neither organized nor participated in the party and did not serve alcohol.

The accident also occurred off their property, and their limited right to use a shared right‑of‑way did not make them occupiers responsible for its condition.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court dismissed the action and cross‑claims against them.

Following a jury trial in a motor vehicle accident action, the jury awarded damages including general damages, future housekeeping costs, and future care.

The defendant brought a threshold motion under s. 267.5 of the Insurance Act seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim for general damages and certain future care expenses on the basis that the plaintiff had not proven a permanent serious impairment of an important bodily function as required by Ontario Regulation 381/03.

The court held that the trial judge determines the threshold issue independently of the jury’s verdict and is not bound by the jury’s factual findings.

The plaintiff’s expert evidence was rejected as lacking objectivity and failing to comply with the evidentiary requirements of the Regulation.

The court concluded the plaintiff failed to meet the statutory threshold and dismissed the claims for general damages and future medical rehabilitation expenses.

Following dismissal of a complex multi‑party action on summary judgment, the successful defendants sought costs of the entire action in addition to agreed costs of the summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff argued that costs submissions should be limited to the motion and that delay in bringing the motion inflated the defendants’ legal fees.

The court held that where summary judgment disposes of the entire action, the court may fix costs of the entire proceeding, treating the motion similarly to a trial judgment.

Applying the discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the defendants’ claimed partial‑indemnity costs by 25% to align with what would have been the plaintiff’s reasonable expectations in a large and technically complex case.

The plaintiff pharmaceutical company stored vaccines with a logistics provider under a master services agreement requiring the plaintiff to obtain all‑risk property insurance covering the stored goods and naming the warehouse operator as an additional insured.

After a refrigeration malfunction allegedly rendered the vaccines unsellable, the plaintiff commenced a subrogated action against the warehouse operator and various contractors responsible for the cooling and monitoring system.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

The court held that the covenant to insure constituted an allocation of risk whereby the plaintiff assumed the risk of loss to the goods and thereby barred tort claims against the warehouse operator for that loss.

The court further held that the covenant extended to contractors and related parties with an identity of interest in the performance of the contract.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action and all cross‑claims.

The defendant property owner brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing an action alleging occupiers’ liability following injuries sustained during a horse‑handling incident on a hobby farm.

The plaintiff alleged that the occupier negligently maintained fencing and gating which allegedly contributed to a horse-related accident.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to identify any act or omission by the occupier that breached the statutory duty under the Occupier’s Liability Act or the Negligence Act.

The evidence showed the fencing and gate were common and properly installed, and the alleged incident arose from the actions of the participants rather than any unsafe condition of the premises.

As no genuine issue requiring a trial was established, summary judgment dismissing the claim against the occupier was granted.

An insurer appealed a private arbitration award concerning a statutory accident benefits loss transfer dispute arising from a multi‑vehicle highway collision.

The arbitrator had found that a heavy commercial truck insured by the appellant caused a chain‑reaction collision and was 100% at fault under Rule 9(4) of the Fault Determination Rules, entitling the respondent insurer to full indemnification for benefits paid to its insured.

The appellant argued the incident constituted a pile‑up governed by Rule 11, which would limit liability to 50%, and challenged the finding of a collision involving its insured vehicle.

The court held the arbitrator’s factual findings were supported by the evidence and that Rule 9(4) was correctly applied because the other vehicles were stationary in the same lane at the time of impact.

The appeal was dismissed and the arbitration award affirmed.