Michael L. Kennedy

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the appellant’s action arising from a motor vehicle accident, following a jury’s verdict.

The appellant claimed the trial judge erred by not permitting the jury to deliberate on future income loss and housekeeping expenses, and by refusing expert testimony on these costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury's undisputed finding of no causation rendered the rulings on damages irrelevant.

This motion concerned the duration of an assignment of future collateral income benefits under s. 267.8(12) of the Insurance Act, following a jury award for income loss.

The defendant insurer sought assignment until the plaintiff reached age 65, while the plaintiff argued for a limitation to 10 years, consistent with the jury's assessment of future income loss.

The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, limiting the assignment to the 10-year period determined by the jury, emphasizing the legislative intent to prevent double recovery without under-compensating the injured party.

The defendant, The Cadillac Fairview Corporation, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay under Rule 24.01(1)(c) or, alternatively, to impose a timetable.

The plaintiff, Joanne Tsivaras, opposed the dismissal.

The court found that while there was a lengthy delay, it was not sufficiently inordinate or prejudicial to warrant dismissal, allowing the action to proceed.

The court granted the alternative request for a timetable and awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants.

A separate hearing was ordered to determine whether the plaintiff or her lawyers (Pace Law Firm) should bear the costs liability, due to concerns about the law firm's conduct regarding file management and communication.

This ruling addresses a defendant's motion for leave to call more than three expert witnesses at a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff opposed, alleging duplication and disadvantage between the defendant's proposed physiatrist and orthopaedic surgeon.

The court granted leave, finding that the proposed five experts, despite some similar observations in their reports, represented distinct specialties and provided unique perspectives necessary for a full adjudication of damages, particularly in a chronic pain case.

The court found no undue duplication or disadvantage to the plaintiff.

This supplementary endorsement addresses a challenge to a sealing order granted in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings of Laurentian University of Sudbury.

The sealing order covered confidential correspondence between the University and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, which Laurentian University argued contained sensitive information that, if disclosed, could jeopardize its restructuring efforts.

Parties opposing the sealing order contended there was no evidentiary basis for it.

Applying the two-branch test from Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), the court found that the disclosure posed a real and substantial risk to the University's future viability, that the "commercial" interest extended to the broader community, and that no reasonable alternatives existed given ongoing mediation.

Consequently, the court maintained the confidentiality of the exhibits and the existing sealing order.

Laurentian University (LU) sought an Amended and Restated Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to facilitate its restructuring.

The requested relief included an extension of the stay of proceedings until April 30, 2021, approval of a $25 million Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) facility, an increase in the Administration Charge to $1.25 million, and an increase in the Directors' Charge to $5 million.

LU also sought a stay of pre-filing and post-filing special payments to its defined benefit pension plan and a stay of requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The court granted all requested relief, finding it necessary and reasonable for the continued operation and restructuring of the university.

The sealing order for certain confidential exhibits was maintained pending a supplementary endorsement.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its motion to amend its amended statement of claim to add particulars of additional equipment allegedly damaged by defective hydraulic lubricant manufactured by the respondent, Greenland Corporation.

The motion judge had rejected the amendments on the basis that they constituted new, statute-barred causes of action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in misinterpreting the pleadings and in conflating the discovery of the claim with the discovery of the extent of damages.

The court held that all alleged damage stemmed from a single cause—the defective hydraulic lubricant—and therefore constituted particulars of one claim rather than separate causes of action.