R. Donald Rollo

The parties settled damages in a motor vehicle accident where a pedestrian was struck.

The defendants brought a motion to vary the usual order of presentation at trial, arguing they bear the onus of disproving negligence under s. 193(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff still bears the burden of proving at least one issue on liability, such as that she was struck by the defendants' vehicle, and therefore there was no basis to depart from the usual order of presentation.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for coverage of water damage to her property.

The insurer argued that the policy's vacancy exclusion applied because the plaintiff, who had moved to a retirement home due to cognitive impairment, had no intention of returning.

The court found that the plaintiff lacked the capacity to form an intention to return and that there was no objective plan for her to do so.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue for trial regarding the vacancy exclusion and granted the summary judgment motion, dismissing the action.

The moving parties brought a motion for contempt against the responding party, a judgment debtor, for failing to answer written interrogatories.

The court previously found the responding party in contempt and adjourned sentencing to allow him to purge.

The court found that the responding party's subsequent answers were inadequate, obfuscating, and failed to provide key financial information, rejecting his claims that poor health prevented compliance.

As a penalty, the court prohibited the responding party from taking any steps in this or related litigation until the contempt is purged.

Following a jury verdict finding the plaintiff 100% liable for injuries arising from a motor vehicle collision, the successful defendants sought substantial costs.

The court applied the reasonableness and proportionality principles governing costs awards under the Rules of Civil Procedure and appellate guidance.

While the defendants were entitled to partial indemnity costs because they succeeded at trial, the court reduced the quantum significantly due to excessive and duplicative claims, unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings by the defendants, and improper inclusion of certain items such as voluntary mediation costs.

Arguments by the plaintiff that costs should be denied due to hardship, alleged disclosure failures, or Rule 49 offer acceptance were rejected.

The court fixed a reduced costs award reflecting fairness and proportionality.