Paljinder S. Mahaar

The court fixed the costs of the defendants' unsuccessful motion for further particulars.

The plaintiffs, as the successful party, sought full indemnity costs, while the defendants argued for no costs or limited partial indemnity.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that the motion's dismissal was due to "evolving Rules reforms" justifying no costs.

It also rejected the plaintiffs' request for substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the defendants.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, considering the moderate complexity and the defendants' unnecessary pursuit of the motion, fixing the amount at $4,000.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The defendants brought a motion for particulars seeking additional details regarding the plaintiffs' claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent payments, oppression, and piercing the corporate veil.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim provided sufficient material facts to allow the defendants to plead.

The judge emphasized that many requested particulars were either already provided, within the defendants' own knowledge (e.g., corporate records), or could be obtained through the discovery process.

The court also expressed concern that the motion for particulars was being used as a delay tactic, contrary to the goals of civil procedure reform.

This motion sought court approval for a proposed settlement affecting the minor plaintiff, Davon Khan, and other plaintiffs, arising from a car accident.

The court reviewed the settlement allocation and contingency fee arrangement under Rule 7.08, ensuring it was fair and in the minor plaintiff's best interests, particularly given the soft tissue injuries and litigation risks.

The settlement was approved, with a net payment into court for the minor plaintiff.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that his injuries from a 2015 motor vehicle accident fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred by applying the 'but for' test for causation instead of the 'material contribution' test, and by improperly weighing the medical evidence, particularly given an intervening second accident.

The Associate Chair waived the late filing of the reconsideration request but dismissed it on the merits, finding no error of law or fact in the original decision's application of the 'but for' test or its assessment of the medical evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, arguing that a pre-existing low back condition exempted him from the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to establish a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery within the Guideline, noting that most of the applicant's medical evidence post-dated a second motor vehicle accident.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, and his claims for prescription medications were denied as he had exhausted the Guideline's monetary limits.