Michael Ellis

The plaintiff brought an ex parte motion for substituted service and an extension of time to serve the statement of claim.

The court criticized the draft order for errors including an incorrect file number, improper preamble, and vague operative paragraphs.

The court also found the requested six-month extension unreasonable and the request to avoid serving motion materials unsupported.

The plaintiff was directed to file a proper draft order and, if pursuing the rule 37.07(4) order, to provide supporting materials.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) after attempting to return to work.

The respondent denied the IRBs on the basis that the applicant failed to submit a completed Disability Certificate (OCF-3) within 104 weeks of the accident.

The Tribunal held that section 36 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule creates strict procedural requirements.

Because the applicant did not submit the required OCF-3 within the 104-week period despite repeated requests, the claim for IRBs was dismissed.

The defendant, Dr. Collings, brought a motion under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff's claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, arguing expert witness immunity and that the damages claimed were speculative.

The plaintiff sued Dr. Collings, a neuropsychologist, for alleged negligence in failing to provide an expert report and records, which the plaintiff claimed led to a reduced settlement in an underlying motor vehicle accident action.

The court granted the defendant's motion, finding that expert witness immunity applied and, alternatively, that the claim for damages was wholly speculative and constituted "settlement remorse."

The applicant sought payment for chiropractic and psychological treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer argued it was not liable due to the applicant's failure to provide requested medical records under s. 33 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the requested information was not reasonably required, as the insurer had already denied the claims on their merits.

However, on the substantive issues, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that neither treatment plan was reasonable and necessary given the preponderance of medical evidence, including multiple insurer examinations indicating no further need for treatment and a lengthy gap in seeking treatment.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied.

The defendant dentist brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's dental malpractice action on the basis that it was commenced beyond the two-year limitation period.

The court held a mini-trial to determine the issue of discoverability.

The plaintiff argued he only discovered the claim after a consultation with another dentist on June 15, 2010, while the defendant argued the claim was discoverable earlier when the plaintiff sought treatment from other dentists for ongoing issues.

The court found that a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would have realized the potential negligence by May 20, 2010, when the tooth treated by the defendant was extracted.

As the action was commenced more than two years after this date, the motion was granted and the action dismissed.

Following a trial in a commercial dispute arising from an agreement of purchase and sale for a property intended to be converted into a motion capture studio, the successful plaintiff sought costs of approximately $191,895 including fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiff relied on Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that an offer to settle entitled it to substantial indemnity costs after the date of the offer.

The court found the offer to settle was not served within the timeframe required by Rule 49.10 and the offer itself was not provided to the court.

While the judgment exceeded the amount of the offer, the court declined to award elevated costs and instead assessed costs on a partial indemnity basis globally.

Considering the length of the thirteen‑day trial and the involvement of expert witnesses, the court awarded reduced total costs.

The plaintiff purchased a building from the defendant to use as a motion capture studio.

The agreement required the defendant to complete specific structural renovations.

The defendant commenced work without a building permit, resulting in an order to comply from the city, and ultimately failed to complete the work.

The plaintiff took over the project, hired professionals to obtain permits and finish the renovations, and sued for completion costs and lost profits due to the delay.

The court found the defendant in breach of contract and awarded the plaintiff damages for completion costs, recurring lost profits, and a lost extraordinary business opportunity, while allowing a small portion of the defendant's counterclaim for agreed extras.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a trial judge's decision declaring a mistrial and awarding costs to the defendants.

The mistrial was declared due to the plaintiffs' counsel's inflammatory and prejudicial opening address to the jury.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions that mirrored the cumulative impact of the prejudice in this case, and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the trial judge's exercise of discretion.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision regarding the sufficiency of settlement documents and compliance with regulations prior to the commencement of litigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the motions judge correctly applied established legal principles to uncontested facts and that the proposed appeal raised no question of general public importance.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of whether she could recover no-fault medical and rehabilitation benefits beyond the 10-year benefit period under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, provided the need for such expenses was established with certainty within the 10-year period.

The Court of Appeal held that the plain meaning of section 6(1) of the SABS requires that the expenses result within the benefit period.

Therefore, expenses for treatments and services provided beyond the 10-year anniversary of the accident are not recoverable.

The appeal was dismissed.