Linda M. O’Brien

The defendant brought an unopposed motion in writing seeking an order for the simultaneous or sequential trial of the main action, a third-party claim, and a related action arising from the same motor vehicle accident.

The court declined to sign the draft order due to several deficiencies in the motion materials, including the failure to provide all relevant pleadings, the lack of information regarding the mode of trial (jury or non-jury), and the failure to file proper notices of non-opposition from the responding parties.

The court provided directions for the defendant to file supplementary materials to correct these deficiencies.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a summary judgment motion where the plaintiffs, Regan Maureen Brennan and Cornelius A. Brennan, successfully defended against a motion brought by Jake Rowntree.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court found that while success is a presumptive factor for costs, the plaintiffs failed to justify a substantial indemnity award, making partial indemnity the appropriate scale.

Crucially, the court determined that Cornelius Brennan, a co-plaintiff and lawyer who acted for his daughter, Regan Brennan, could not claim costs for his services as he did not demonstrate an "opportunity cost" by foregoing remunerative activity, a requirement for self-represented litigants (including lawyers acting for themselves or closely aligned parties).

Consequently, the court declined to award costs for legal services, granting only disbursements.

Jake Rowntree brought two motions for summary judgment to dismiss negligence and occupiers liability claims against him arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The claims stemmed from an incident where Regan Brennan, who had alcohol addiction issues, consumed Rowntree's alcohol without permission at his residence and was subsequently asked to leave, later being involved in an accident while intoxicated.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motions, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial due to the absence of crucial evidence from a key witness, Jeff Mailoux, which prevented a fair and just determination of foreseeability and proximity for a duty of care.