Rebecca Nelson

The parties requested a consent adjournment of the pretrial and trial dates because the plaintiff served a late expert report after their original expert became ill.

The court convened a case conference and criticized both parties' conduct regarding the expert reports.

The court adjourned the pretrial to September but directed the defendant to obtain their expert's responding report by August 31, 2022, in an effort to preserve the October trial date.

The applicant law firm sought a declaration of entitlement to $32,100 held in trust by the respondent law firm, representing unpaid legal fees for services provided to a former client.

The respondent estate argued the claim was statute-barred and the applicant lacked standing.

The court found the respondent law firm's undertaking to protect the account was binding on the estate and stopped the limitation period from running.

The court declared the applicant entitled to payment subject to an assessment of the account, finding special circumstances warranted an extension of the statutory time limit for assessment due to the lack of particularity in the account and mutual delay.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for unidentified motorist coverage.

The plaintiff alleged she was involved in a hit-and-run accident but failed to report it to the police or the insurer within the statutory timeframes, relying on alleged advice from an insurance broker's employee.

The court found the plaintiff failed to comply with the strict reporting requirements under the Insurance Act and the Uninsured Automobile Coverage schedule.

Applying the test for relief from forfeiture, the court held the plaintiff's conduct was unreasonable and the insurer suffered actual and potential prejudice by losing the opportunity to investigate.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The defendant, the Superintendent of Financial Services, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, who was ordinarily resident in Brazil.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing impecuniosity and that his claim against the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund was not barred despite his illegal residency status in Canada at the time of the accident.

The court found the plaintiff failed to establish impecuniosity, as he had a brother in Ontario with income and unexplained post-accident earnings.

The court deemed the merits of the claim a neutral factor, leaving the statutory interpretation issue for a pending summary judgment motion.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post $25,000 in security for costs in installments.

Following earlier reasons in which the respondents were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, the court determined the quantum of costs payable by the applicant.

Separate bills of costs were submitted by counsel for two respondents, each including disbursements and HST.

Although one respondent’s counsel worked with junior lawyers and produced a slightly higher bill, the court found the respondents had shared responsibility for responding to the application approximately equally.

Using one bill as a baseline, the court awarded identical costs to both respondents.

An insurer sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend insured parties in an underlying civil action arising from a pellet gun shooting involving a minor driver and passengers.

The policy excluded coverage for bodily injury caused by any intentional or criminal act or failure to act.

The court held that the claim against the minor driver arose from intentional or criminal conduct and fell within the exclusion clause, relieving the insurer of the duty to defend him.

However, the claims against the parents for negligent supervision constituted separate torts and were not derivative of the intentional conduct.

The insurer was therefore required to defend the parents in the underlying action.

The applicant insurer sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend its insureds—a minor and his parents—in a civil action arising from a pellet gun shooting.

The minor had been driving a car while his friends shot pellet guns, injuring the plaintiff, and was convicted of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The parents were sued for negligent supervision.

The court held that the minor's actions fell within the policy's intentional or criminal act exclusion, relieving the insurer of the duty to defend him.

However, the court found that the negligence claims against the parents were separate and not derivative of the intentional tort, meaning the exclusion clause did not apply to them and the insurer retained a duty to defend the parents.