Matthew MacIsaac

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to discovery questions regarding the defendants' homeowner's insurance policy and future investigations/surveillance.

The court found that questions about the homeowner's policy were not relevant as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate it would respond to auto claims or extend liability coverage via an umbrella policy, and the insurer had already complied with disclosure obligations under the Insurance Act.

Questions regarding future investigations/surveillance were also deemed improper as courts do not order anticipatory undertakings for hypothetical future breaches of discovery obligations.

The motion was largely dismissed, with costs divided due to some prior resolved issues.

The plaintiff in a personal injury action sought an extension of time and leave to appeal a motion judge's order requiring her to pay the costs charged by third-party record holders to produce relevant documents.

The court granted the extension of time, finding no prejudice to the defendant and that the justice of the case warranted it.

The court also granted leave to appeal, noting conflicting lines of authority on whether a plaintiff or a defendant seeking production must pay for third-party records, and concluded that an appellate decision was desirable to clarify the law.

Following an unsuccessful summary judgment motion brought by a third party in a slip-and-fall action, the court determined the appropriate costs award payable to the defendant municipality.

The motion had concerned contractual interpretation, contribution and indemnity between a municipality and its snow removal contractor, and the applicable negligence standard.

The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate due to the absence of the plaintiff’s evidence and the need to determine fault at trial.

Applying section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed what was fair and reasonable in light of the parties’ competing cost submissions.

Costs were fixed at a midpoint between the amounts proposed by the parties.

A snow removal contractor brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a third party claim brought by a municipality in a slip-and-fall action.

The municipality alleged the contractor was responsible for contribution and indemnity if the plaintiff established negligence regarding icy sidewalk conditions.

The court held that determining whether negligent snow and ice removal caused the injury required evidence from the plaintiff and could not be decided in the contractor’s summary judgment motion.

Because third party liability could depend on findings made at trial in the main action, a genuine issue requiring a trial remained.

The motion for summary judgment was therefore dismissed.