Lori Visconti

The plaintiff brought a motion to conditionally strike the defendant's jury notice in a personal injury action arising from a 2008 motor vehicle accident.

The trial had previously resulted in a mistrial in January 2020 due to the plaintiff's health crisis.

Citing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting backlog of civil jury trials in Brampton, the plaintiff argued that further delay would cause prejudice, particularly regarding income loss limits and increasing statutory deductibles under the Insurance Act.

The court granted the motion, conditionally striking the jury notice to allow the trial to proceed before a judge alone if a jury trial could not be accommodated during the January 2022 sittings.

This costs endorsement addresses several pre-trial and mid-trial motions, as well as costs thrown away, following a mistrial declared due to the plaintiff's health crisis.

The court considered motions regarding venue transfer, exclusion of surveillance evidence, expert and non-party expert witnesses, and two motions for mistrial.

The court applied principles of costs following the event and the factors under Rule 57.01(1), and specifically addressed "costs thrown away" in the context of a mistrial not caused by fault but by the responsibility of a party due to an unforeseen health event.

The plaintiff was awarded costs for the surveillance and expert witness motions, while the defendant was awarded costs for their mistrial motion and substantial indemnity for costs thrown away.

On the eve of a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident claim, the plaintiff brought a motion to exclude late-served video surveillance reports or, alternatively, for an adjournment.

The court found that the recent surveillance was not substantially different from previously disclosed surveillance and did not unfairly surprise the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the motion to exclude the evidence, granting the defendant leave to use the reports for substantive purposes subject to a mid-trial voir dire.

A short adjournment was granted to allow the plaintiff to review the new surveillance.