Maggie MacDonald

The defendant insurer, Dominion, sought permission at a case conference to bring a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's underinsured motorist claim.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the motion was premature and involved significant credibility and damages issues.

The court dismissed the request to schedule the motion, finding that a partial summary judgment posed a significant risk of inconsistent findings at trial, involved credibility issues regarding the plaintiff's injuries, and would not be efficient given the incomplete evidentiary record.

This motion addressed whether a main action and a third-party action, stemming from a property dispute involving an encroaching structure, should be heard concurrently or sequentially.

The Plaintiffs sought a combined hearing, while the Defendants and Third Parties preferred separate proceedings.

The court, emphasizing judicial efficiency and fairness, determined that the intertwined factual and legal issues, particularly concerning the appropriate equitable remedy for the admitted trespass and the allocation of financial responsibility among all parties, necessitated a single, consolidated trial.

The motion for concurrent hearings was granted to avoid multiplicity of actions and the risk of inconsistent findings.

The applicant law firm sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully enforcing an arbitration award against the respondents.

The respondents argued that the applicant, as a self-represented law firm, was only entitled to nominal costs because it failed to provide evidence of lost opportunity costs or distinguish between client time and counsel time.

The court agreed with the respondents, finding no egregious conduct to warrant substantial indemnity costs and applying appellate principles to award only nominal costs of $5,525.47.

The applicant law firm sought to enforce an arbitral costs award of $130,485 against its former clients following an arbitration assessing legal accounts.

The respondent clients brought a cross-application to set aside the award under s. 46(1)3 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, or alternatively for leave to appeal under s. 45(1).

The court dismissed the cross-application, finding the arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine costs and that the alleged errors regarding the departure from the normal costs paradigm were questions of mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law.

The court granted the application to enforce the costs award.