Marc Alexander Binavince

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to consolidate or hear together two actions: a tort action arising from multiple motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) and an accident benefits (AB) action arising from one specific MVA.

The plaintiff also sought leave to amend the statement of claim and extend time to set down the tort action, which were unopposed and granted.

A preliminary issue regarding the admissibility of affidavit paragraphs containing without prejudice communications from mediation was resolved by striking the paragraphs.

The court found that the gateway criteria under Rule 6.01 for hearing actions together were met, as the tort injuries and SABS entitlement arose from the same MVA.

However, after balancing factors such as the presence of a jury notice in one action but not the other, the differing stages of readiness, the significant delay an order would cause to the AB action, the distinct legal issues, and the lack of clear cost or time savings, the court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to have the actions heard together or one after the other.

The plaintiff, by her litigation guardian, sought court approval of a settlement with Economical Mutual Insurance Company, which involved dismissing the bad faith claim against Economical without costs.

The motion also sought a sealing order for the motion materials and approval of counsel's disbursements.

The court approved the settlement and the majority of the disbursements, finding the settlement reasonable and in the plaintiff's best interests given the risks of litigation.

However, the request for a sealing order was dismissed on procedural grounds, with leave for the plaintiff to re-bring it in open court.

This motion sought court approval for a settlement of the plaintiff's claim against Economical Mutual Insurance Company, where the plaintiff is a person under a disability.

The proposed settlement involved dismissing the claim without costs.

The court identified significant deficiencies in the motion record, including a lack of clear evidence regarding the settlement terms, issues with the contingency fee retainer agreement (CFRA) not meeting statutory requirements, and the absence of a proposed solicitor-client account for approval.

The court also noted procedural irregularities in affidavit commissioning and the inclusion of pleadings as affidavit exhibits.

The motion for settlement approval was not granted, and the plaintiff was directed to provide additional materials and clarify the relief sought.