Lindsay Rodenburg

The Police Defendants brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14(5), (6), and (7) seeking an order to dismiss the action for delay.

The plaintiffs provided explanations for a four-year delay, primarily citing the incarceration of Krystle Oag, which made mandatory mediation impossible for a significant period.

The court found the incarceration to be an acceptable explanation for three of the four years of delay.

Despite a presumption of prejudice, the plaintiffs successfully rebutted it by demonstrating that all relevant documents were produced, key witness memories were captured in discovery transcripts, and all key witnesses remained available for trial.

The motion to dismiss for delay was dismissed, and no costs were awarded due to the poor quality of the plaintiffs' evidence explaining the delay.

The court also ordered a timetable for remaining interlocutory steps, including noting a defendant in default, mandatory mediation, and setting the action down for trial.

The defendant driver brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence claim against him arising from a severe winter motor vehicle collision.

The plaintiffs' vehicle lost control and crossed into the defendant's lane, resulting in a head-on collision.

The motion relied on eyewitness accounts and an expert report suggesting the defendant had no time to react.

The plaintiffs relied on competing expert engineering evidence suggesting the defendant had sufficient time to perceive the hazard and take evasive action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting expert opinions on perception, response time, and evasive maneuvers created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of an infant settlement and disbursement of funds.

The court approved the $58,000 settlement for the infant plaintiff, Bentley Hall, who suffered abuse at school.

However, the court declined to approve the request to pay the net settlement funds into a Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP), ordering them paid into court instead, citing a lack of exceptional circumstances to deviate from Rule 7.09(1).

Furthermore, the court refused to enforce the plaintiffs' contingency fee agreement (CFA) because it was not in writing, as required by the Solicitors Act and its Regulation.

The proposed legal fees were also deemed unreasonable and disproportionate, leading the court to assess and reduce them from $15,461.79 to $11,865 (including HST).

The defendant driver brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff passenger's action and the co-defendants' cross-claim against him following a motor vehicle collision.

The moving party argued the co-defendant lost control of his vehicle on a snow-covered highway and crossed into the moving party's lane on an on-ramp.

The co-defendant argued the collision occurred in the highway's right lane during a merge.

Applying the summary judgment framework, the court weighed the evidence, including independent witness testimony and accident reconstruction evidence, and found the moving party's version of events reliable.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the moving party's liability and dismissed the claims against him.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded $41,900, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $47,711.63, while the defendant suggested partial indemnity costs of up to $25,181.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $30,434.14, noting that neither party's offer to settle triggered Rule 49 consequences.

The court reduced the plaintiff's costs due to a non-compliant expert report under Rule 53 and the failure to disclose acceptance of the defendant's expert quantification prior to trial.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order compelling the production of historical medical records dating back to 2000 in a personal injury action.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal primarily because it was served out of time and the plaintiff did not seek an extension.

The court also noted that the motion would fail on the merits, as the requested records were relevant to the plaintiff's pre-existing complaints and proportional to the $2 million damages claim.