Mark William Birdsell

This endorsement outlines a case management order for five consolidated actions arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court, acting as case management judge, set a timetable for the remaining procedural steps, including the completion of examinations for discovery, answering undertakings, conducting defence medical examinations, and scheduling a mediation.

The order also directed counsel to circulate a draft consent order for trial of the actions together and to advise on the continuation of an action against a specific insurer.

This endorsement outlines a case management order for five consolidated actions arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court, acting as case management judge, set a timetable for the remaining procedural steps, including the completion of examinations for discovery, answering undertakings, conducting defence medical examinations, and scheduling a mediation.

The order also directed counsel to circulate a draft consent order for trial of the actions together and to advise on the continuation of an action against a specific insurer.

The defendant Saad Amjad, a G1 driver, caused a motor vehicle accident injuring plaintiffs Jonathan Caithesan and Christo Delina.

Their respective insurers, Dominion General Insurance Company and Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, settled the claims and then brought motions for summary judgment on their cross-claims against Amjad for recovery of the settlement payments.

The court found Amjad negligent in operating the vehicle and that the settled damages were reasonable.

The court dismissed Amjad's defence of contributory negligence by the passengers, finding that passenger knowledge of an inexperienced driver or influence to take a car does not constitute contributory negligence.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of both insurance companies against Amjad.

The third party moving parties sought summary judgment dismissing allegations of contributory negligence arising from a motor vehicle collision at an intersection where the opposing driver failed to yield at a stop sign.

The responding defendants argued that issues of speeding and failure to keep a proper lookout created a genuine issue requiring trial.

The court reviewed the discovery evidence, witness testimony, and the defendant’s guilty plea to failing to yield.

It concluded there was no evidence supporting contributory negligence by the driver who had the right of way and that the collision was unavoidable from his perspective.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the moving parties.