Maia Lee Bent

The Riggi defendants brought a motion for a declaration that a prior "all-inclusive" settlement of $20,000 for a motor vehicle accident claim was valid and enforceable, and for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs, including the main plaintiff and Family Law Act (FLA) claimants, opposed the motion, arguing that no valid settlement was reached, or if it was, it was unconscionable, unfair, and would result in injustice.

The court found that a valid and enforceable settlement had been reached between the main plaintiff and the Riggi defendants, and that the FLA claims, being derivative, were also settled.

The court declined to set aside the settlement, finding no evidence of unconscionability or that the defendants took advantage of any inequality.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, enforcing the settlement and dismissing the claims against the Riggi defendants.

This decision addresses costs following a settlement approval for a severely injured plaintiff, Joshua Johnson, from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (MVACF).

The court considered whether the Fund, on behalf of Cody Crouse, was liable for the plaintiffs' costs throughout the entire action, including appeals, and whether a Sanderson or Bullock order should be made for the Fund to pay the successful defendant Rankin's Garage's costs.

The court found that the plaintiffs were compelled by the MVACA to pursue all potential tortfeasors, including Rankin's, through all appeals to access the Fund.

It ruled that the court had the authority to award costs for all stages of litigation, including appeals, and that a Sanderson order was appropriate given the circumstances and the Fund's ability to pay, to prevent injustice to the plaintiff.

In a negligence appeal concerning injuries suffered after minors stole an unlocked vehicle from a commercial garage, the Court addressed whether the garage owner owed a duty of care to the injured passenger.

The majority held that while theft risk was foreseeable, the record did not establish reasonable foreseeability of personal injury from unsafe operation of the stolen vehicle in the specific circumstances.

Applying Anns/Cooper, the majority found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie duty of care and dismissed the claim against the garage owner.

The dissent would have upheld the existing duty category for foreseeable physical injury and maintained liability findings.

The plaintiff suffered a severe acquired brain injury after losing control of her vehicle on a snow-covered portion of a county road.

She sued the municipality for failing to maintain the road.

The court found that the municipality breached its statutory duty under the Municipal Act by failing to plow and salt the road, which had accumulated a large snow drift.

The court rejected the municipality's statutory defences and its argument that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent for driving too fast.

The plaintiff was awarded significant damages for non-pecuniary loss, past and future income loss, future care costs, and Family Law Act claims for her parents.