Louise A. James

An insurer sought default judgment against an uninsured defendant following settlement with the plaintiff.

The insurer had taken an assignment of the plaintiff's action and settled for $105,000.

The court considered whether the settlement amount could be used as a proxy for damages in the absence of detailed evidence regarding the plaintiff's injuries and losses.

The court found insufficient evidence to establish the reasonableness of the settlement and declined to grant judgment, allowing the insurer 21 days to file additional evidence.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time for service of a statement of claim and to increase the prayer for relief to $10,000,000.

The plaintiff was uninsured when his vehicle was struck by the defendants in a private parking lot.

Relying on mistaken legal advice that uninsured motorists cannot sue for torts in private lots, the plaintiff's former counsel issued but did not serve the claim.

Years later, new counsel discovered the unserved claim and served it.

The court granted the extension, finding no actual prejudice to the defendants because their insurer had extensively investigated the plaintiff's injuries through his accident benefits claim, and the plaintiff adequately explained the delay as reliance on faulty legal advice.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and a co-defendant's crossclaim in a motor vehicle personal injury action.

The moving parties relied on an expert report attached to an affidavit from an associate lawyer.

The court gave no weight to the expert report because it was provided via information and belief, depriving the responding parties of the opportunity to cross-examine the expert.

Finding three conflicting accounts of the accident and substantial issues of credibility and reliability, the court concluded there were genuine issues requiring a trial and dismissed the motion.

A client appealed a decision confirming an assessment officer's assessment of a lawyer's fees and disbursements at $125,602.83.

The lawyer had been retained under a contingency fee agreement that provided for hourly billing if the retainer was terminated.

After the solicitor-client relationship broke down, the client retained new counsel and later self-represented.

The client settled a claim against Food Basics for $30,000, with the settlement agreement providing that costs be paid directly to the lawyer.

The assessment officer rejected the client's argument that an undertaking limiting recovery to $50,000 applied, finding that the undertaking no longer governed once the client self-represented.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error and confirming the assessment officer's jurisdiction and reasoning.