Rachel Martin

The court ruled on a threshold motion and costs following a jury trial in a motor vehicle accident case.

The defendant conceded liability, but after the jury awarded no damages, the defendant moved for a declaration that the plaintiff’s injuries did not meet the statutory threshold for health care expenses and non-pecuniary damages under the Insurance Act and regulations.

The court found that while the plaintiff suffered a permanent impairment, it was not serious or important enough to meet the threshold.

The defendant was awarded $150,000 in costs.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a successful motion brought by the Defendant to set aside an ex-parte injunction and Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) previously granted to the Plaintiffs.

The Defendant sought costs of $12,943.07, while the Plaintiffs argued for no costs, citing the necessity of the injunction, original harm, and a reasonable offer to settle.

The court found the Defendant was entirely successful in the underlying motion and was entitled to costs.

However, the court deemed the Defendant's requested costs excessive for a straightforward motion and awarded $7,500.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements, rejecting the Plaintiffs' arguments against costs and their offer to settle as insufficient to reduce the award.

The Defendant brought a motion to set aside an ex-parte injunction and a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) that the Plaintiffs had obtained against a property.

The Plaintiffs alleged an agreement to purchase the property from the Defendant, which the Defendant denied.

The court, conducting a de novo hearing, dissolved the injunction and ordered the removal of the CPL.

The court found that the Plaintiffs failed to meet the three-part test for an injunction, particularly regarding irreparable harm and the balance of convenience.

For the CPL, the court determined that the Plaintiffs' claim for specific performance lacked merit, as there was insufficient evidence of a written agreement under the Statute of Frauds and no demonstration of the property's uniqueness to warrant specific performance over damages.