Nersi Makki

The plaintiff brought a refusals motion to compel a representative of the defendant developer to answer discovery questions about whether other purchasers had complained of being misled into buying semi-detached homes instead of detached homes.

The court found the questions relevant to the plaintiff's claims of misrepresentation and unilateral mistake, as the existence of similar complaints would make her claim more likely to be true and could shed light on the defendant's knowledge.

The motion was granted, and the defendant was ordered to answer the questions.

Following settlement negotiations in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the parties sought a judicial determination of whether an earlier Rule 49 offer to settle remained open for acceptance after the defendants delivered a subsequent “revised” offer.

The plaintiffs purported to accept the original offer after the revised offer clarified the allocation of damages and limited prejudgment interest to certain heads of damages.

The court held that the revised offer constituted a new offer that implicitly withdrew the earlier offer.

Even if the original offer had remained open, the plaintiffs could not reasonably rely on its literal wording because they knew the revised terms limited the interest calculation.

The court concluded that the original offer was not open for acceptance when the plaintiffs attempted to accept it.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's finding that they did not suffer a serious and permanent impairment under s. 35(5) of the Insurance Act following a motor vehicle accident.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, including the finding that any impairment contributing to the breakdown of the appellant's marriage was not proven to be serious and permanent.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed the decision of the motion judge dismissing his action.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting that the appellant failed to plead material facts for causes of action independent of his wrongful dismissal claim.

As the appellant had already amended his pleadings twice and did not provide a proposed statement of claim, the court upheld the refusal to grant leave to amend and dismissed the appeal.