Mary-Joe Renaud

Following a successful motion to strike the defendant's jury notice due to COVID-19 delays, the plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $14,885.98.

The defendant argued for costs in the cause or a reduction, noting the novelty of the issue in Windsor.

The court found the issue was not legally novel enough to warrant no costs, but agreed the plaintiffs' claimed hours were excessive.

Costs were fixed at $8,000 payable in the cause.

The plaintiffs moved to strike the defendant's jury notice and requested a judge-alone trial, potentially virtual and in tranches, citing substantial trial delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant opposed, arguing for the preservation of the right to a jury trial and suggesting a "wait and see" approach.

The court granted leave for the motion, finding a "substantial or unexpected change in circumstances" due to the pandemic.

Considering the local court conditions in Windsor, including limited courtroom capacity and a significant backlog of criminal and family cases, the court determined that a civil jury trial would face inevitable and considerable delay into 2022 or beyond.

The court found that the delay constituted prejudice to the plaintiffs, outweighing the defendant's right to a jury trial, and that a judge-alone virtual trial would better serve the interests of justice by providing a more expeditious resolution.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently determined to be catastrophically impaired due to chronic pain and depression.

She sought retroactive statutory accident benefits for housekeeping, attendant care, and medical marijuana.

The arbitrator held that the catastrophic impairment determination had retroactive effect, entitling the applicant to $17,800 for housekeeping benefits despite a lack of incurred expense receipts.

For attendant care, the arbitrator preferred the insurer's assessment of $864 per month, finding the applicant did not require 24/7 care.

The arbitrator also awarded $12,600 for medical marijuana purchases, noting that the applicant could not claim both growing equipment and purchasing costs.

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiffs' counsel, Greg Monforton and Partners, due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The child plaintiff, Sora Al Bidery, was represented by the firm, as were her parents, Amir Al Bidery and Amal Karim, who were also named as defendants by counterclaim for negligent supervision.

The court found an inherent conflict of interest based on the duties of loyalty and confidentiality.

The plaintiffs' counsel had taken positions on behalf of the parents that were adverse to the child's interests and had not obtained informed consent from all parties regarding the conflict.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiffs' counsel was removed from the record for all three plaintiffs.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on liability arising from a highway collision in which she was struck from behind while walking on the shoulder.

The court applied the post-Hryniak summary judgment framework and held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on the liability issues.

The driver was found negligent given his undisclosed seizure history, recent seizure, alcohol consumption, late medication use, and breaches of G1 licence conditions.

The court also found negligent entrustment against the defendant who allowed him to drive and held the vehicle owners vicariously liable under s. 192 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The plaintiff was permitted to proceed to an assessment of damages, and partial indemnity costs were fixed.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their statement of claim to significantly increase claims for future care, housekeeping, and income loss.

The defendant did not oppose the amendment but sought orders compelling a further examination for discovery and requiring the plaintiff to attend a defence in-home occupational therapy assessment.

The court held the defendant had not met the requirements under Rule 31.09 to justify a further discovery because there was no evidence the plaintiff’s prior answers were incomplete or incorrect.

However, the court exercised its discretion to order a non‑medical occupational therapy assessment, finding that the plaintiff had placed functional limitations and significant future care costs in issue and fairness required the defendant be able to obtain comparable evidence.

The motion for further discovery was denied, but the defence occupational therapy assessment was ordered and costs were awarded partially to the defendant.

The plaintiff was involved in two motor vehicle accidents 11 months apart.

He settled his claim against the first tortfeasor and provided a standard release.

The identity of the second tortfeasor was unknown, so the plaintiff sued his own insurer under the unidentified motorist coverage for damages arising exclusively from the second collision.

The insurer brought a third party claim against the first tortfeasor for contribution and indemnity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision to strike the third party claim, finding that the insurer would only be held liable for the degree of damages attributable to the second accident and therefore had no right to seek contribution or indemnity from the first tortfeasor.