Marie Nicole Dianne Lemieux

The plaintiff moved under Rule 21 to strike portions of the statement of defence relying on a ski resort waiver and release, arguing that s. 9(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 prevented the supplier from contracting out of liability for negligent provision of services.

The court held that the issue was novel in Ontario in the context of ski resort waivers and should not be determined on a Rule 21 motion without a full factual record and possible expert evidence.

Because the threshold issue failed, the statutory interpretation question was not decided.

The motion was dismissed with agreed costs to the defendants.

Following a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff $108,000 for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision, the defendants brought a threshold motion under the Insurance Act.

The defendants argued the plaintiff failed to prove a permanent serious impairment of an important physical function.

The court preferred the evidence of the plaintiff's chronic pain expert over the defence's orthopaedic surgeon, finding the plaintiff suffered a permanent and serious impairment that prevented her from continuing her employment as an exotic dancer.

The defendants' motion was dismissed.

Following a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident that resulted in a damages award exceeding $1 million, the court addressed post‑trial issues of costs and pre‑judgment interest.

The statutory third party insurer had denied coverage but fully participated in the litigation under s. 258 of the Insurance Act.

The court held that the insurer’s litigation positions and refusal to accept the plaintiff’s settlement offers necessitated the lengthy trial and justified significant cost consequences.

Pre‑judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act was awarded as claimed.

The court fixed costs in favour of the plaintiffs, including partial indemnity costs to trial and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Following a jury trial awarding damages exceeding $1 million for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiffs sought directions regarding their ability to pursue recovery against the defendant driver's insurer, which had denied coverage and participated in the action as a statutory third party under s. 258(14) of the Insurance Act.

The insurer argued the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek directions and that any claim for insurance proceeds must be brought by a fresh action.

The court held that the judgment creditor effectively stands in the shoes of the insured for purposes of addressing coverage issues and may participate in determining whether relief from forfeiture or coverage applies.

Requiring a new statement of claim would be inefficient where the insurer had fully participated in the litigation and suffered no prejudice.

The court ordered disclosure of the insurer’s basis for denying coverage and directed that the issue proceed by motion before the trial judge.

The plaintiff moved under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for judgment enforcing a settlement after accepting the defendant’s “all‑inclusive” offer to settle a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The acceptance letter stated that the plaintiff would not be responsible for a defence medical examination cancellation fee.

The defendant argued the added wording constituted a counter‑offer and prevented contract formation.

The court held the statement did not alter the legal terms of the offer because the cancellation fee risk was already encompassed within the defendant’s all‑inclusive settlement offer.

A binding settlement contract was therefore formed and the court exercised its discretion to enforce the agreement.

Following a prior decision on competing motions, the court determined the appropriate costs award between the plaintiff and the statutory third party.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs as the successful party on the statutory third party’s motion, while the statutory third party sought a set-off based on costs incurred responding to the plaintiff’s motion for directions, which was later withdrawn.

The court held that both motions arose from the same litigation context and that some allowance should be made for the additional work caused by the withdrawn motion, but not to the extent claimed by the statutory third party.

The court emphasized that the task was to fix costs rather than assess them through a strict formula.

After considering the circumstances, the court fixed the plaintiff’s costs at a reduced amount following set-off.

A statutory third-party insurer moved to set aside a prior summary judgment establishing liability against insured defendants in a motor vehicle personal injury action.

The insurer argued that under s. 258(15) of the Insurance Act it should be permitted to contest liability and damages despite the default and summary judgment entered against the insured.

The court held that the insurer had chosen not to participate in earlier proceedings and was effectively attempting a collateral attack on a prior order refusing to set aside the noting in default.

Because the insurer provided no evidence of a viable defence on the merits and failed to meet the applicable test for setting aside a judgment, the court declined to set aside or vary the order.

The request to allow the insurer to contest liability notwithstanding the judgment was also refused.

The defendant brought a motion seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a further defence medical examination by a neurologist regarding Bell’s Palsy allegedly arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing that a second defence medical was unnecessary and would delay the scheduled pre-trial and trial.

The court considered the governing principles under Rule 33 and the Courts of Justice Act concerning further medical examinations and emphasized fairness and the need for each party to present appropriate expert evidence.

The court found that the defendant had no prior notice that Bell’s Palsy would be advanced as a causally related injury until a late-served medical report.

In the circumstances, fairness required permitting the defence an opportunity to assess the condition through a further examination.

The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment enforcing an accepted settlement under Rule 48.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in relation to a wrongful dismissal action and a related disability benefits claim.

The motion sought identical relief to a companion motion in a related court file.

The court dismissed the motion for the same reasons provided in the companion decision released the same day.

As costs had already been awarded in the companion matter, no additional costs were ordered for this motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking judgment in the terms of an accepted settlement under Rule 48.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in relation to wrongful dismissal and disability benefits actions.

By the time of the hearing, the settlement funds had been paid and the only remaining issue was costs of the motion.

The court reviewed the settlement timeline and found that payment was made within a reasonable period after the plaintiff’s counsel satisfied conditions required under the minutes of settlement.

The court held the motion to enforce settlement was premature and unnecessary, particularly given the absence of any payment deadline and the defendant’s ongoing communications.

Costs were awarded to the defendant for having to respond to the motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 48.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking judgment enforcing an accepted settlement in a wrongful dismissal and disability benefits dispute.

Although a settlement agreement had been reached in principle, disputes arose regarding the characterization of settlement amounts, delivery of settlement documents, and requests for confirmation of the plaintiff’s capacity to enter into the agreement.

The plaintiff commenced a motion to enforce settlement before all settlement funds had been delivered.

The court found the motion to be premature and unnecessary, noting that payment timelines were reasonable given the circumstances and that no payment deadline existed in the Minutes of Settlement.

The court dismissed the motion and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 48.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking judgment in the terms of an alleged accepted settlement relating to companion actions for wrongful dismissal and disability benefits.

The motion sought to enforce the purported settlement agreement against the defendants.

The court relied on reasons released in a companion proceeding involving the same parties and identical relief.

For the reasons given in that related decision, the court dismissed the motion.

No costs were awarded in this proceeding because costs had already been addressed in the companion matter.