M. Stoiko

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action, the defendant sought costs.

The plaintiff argued that an appeal had been filed, triggering an automatic stay under Rule 63.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which should preclude the court from making a costs award.

The court held that while Rule 63.01 stays enforcement, it does not preclude the motion judge from fixing costs.

The court awarded the defendant costs fixed at $70,291.52, noting the plaintiff's multiple changes of counsel and inefficient prosecution of the matter which caused significant expense to the defence.

The defendant brought a motion to find the plaintiff in contempt for failing to comply with a court order requiring him to attend defence medical examinations in the Greater Toronto Area.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion seeking accommodation under the Human Rights Code to have the medicals conducted in Thunder Bay.

The court found the plaintiff in contempt, noting his clear and intentional refusal to attend the scheduled appointments.

The cross-motion was dismissed as an abuse of process, as the court had previously determined the plaintiff was medically able to travel.

As a remedy for the contempt, the court dismissed the plaintiff's action in its entirety.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion, the parties could not agree on the quantum of costs.

The plaintiff argued for a nominal award of $1,500 to $2,000, while the defendant sought $7,500 plus HST.

The court rejected the plaintiff's submission for a nominal award, noting the plaintiff had refused a reasonable request to amend an existing order regarding defence medical examinations.

The court found the defendant's request proportionate and consistent with a previous order, fixing costs at $7,500 plus HST payable forthwith by the plaintiff.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend defence medical examinations in Toronto.

The plaintiff, who resides near Thunder Bay, objected on the basis that his injuries from a motor vehicle accident rendered him medically unable to travel.

After reviewing expert evidence, including a jointly retained neurosurgeon's report and evidence of the plaintiff's extensive recent travel, the court found the plaintiff was medically able to travel.

The plaintiff was ordered to attend the examinations in Toronto, without prejudice to his right to bring a subsequent motion regarding COVID-19 concerns.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff brought an unopposed motion to extend the time to serve the statement of claim on the defendant and for substituted service on the defendant's insurer, or to dispense with service.

The action arose from a motor vehicle accident.

After three attendances and multiple opportunities to provide sufficient evidence, the Master dismissed the motion.

The evidence provided by the plaintiff's law clerk was found to be contradictory, largely hearsay, and failed to adequately explain the delay in service or demonstrate reasonable efforts to locate the defendant.

Furthermore, substituted service on the insurer was inappropriate as the insurer had taken an off-cover position and added itself as a statutory third party.