Rasha El-Tawil

Following a jury verdict in favour of the plaintiffs in a personal injury action, the parties sought rulings on two issues.

First, the court held that under s. 278(2) of the Insurance Act, the insurer must share any subrogated recovery with the plaintiffs on a pro rata basis until the plaintiffs are fully indemnified under their OPCF 44R endorsement.

Second, the court held that a third party who defended the main action is not jointly and severally liable to the plaintiffs under s. 1 of the Negligence Act, but rather is severally liable to the defendant who commenced the third party claim.

Following a jury verdict awarding the plaintiffs $3.565 million for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident caused by an impaired driver, the court determined several post-trial legal issues.

The court denied the third-party bartender's request to amend his pleadings to add a limitation defence due to prejudice.

The court found the bartender was an independent contractor or volunteer, meaning the host was not vicariously liable for his negligence, but the host could seek contribution and indemnity under the Negligence Act.

The court also ruled that the plaintiffs could access their OPCF 44R underinsured motorist coverage without having sued the bartender, as his insurance was not 'available' to them within the meaning of the endorsement.

Finally, the court ordered the assignment of future statutory accident benefits to prevent double recovery.

The plaintiff was injured in a bicycle accident in a construction zone and initially sued the municipality.

After the municipality issued a third-party claim against the contractor, the plaintiff commenced a separate action against the contractor.

The contractor moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period and constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding when the plaintiff reasonably could have discovered the contractor's involvement, given her injuries and the lack of clarity about the construction site.

The court also found no abuse of process and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to consolidate the actions.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to adjourn an eight‑week civil trial scheduled on the running list while appeals were pending concerning a refusal to amend the statement of claim and to admit late expert valuation reports.

The defendants opposed the adjournment, arguing the appeals would not materially affect the trial and proposing procedural alternatives such as hearing evidence and awaiting appellate outcomes or bifurcating liability and damages.

Applying the principles governing adjournments, including the objective of deciding matters on their substantive merits and considerations of prejudice and fairness, the court found the pending appeals could significantly affect the pleadings and expert evidence at trial.

The court concluded that proceeding before those issues were resolved risked inefficient and potentially unfair proceedings.

The trial was therefore adjourned pending the appellate process.