Robert Hewett Littlejohn

The plaintiff was injured when struck in the eye by a baseball during an adult recreational slow-pitch league game.

He sued the municipality, the league, and the player who threw the ball, alleging the municipality failed to properly align the field lights, causing him to lose sight of the ball.

The court found that while the liability waiver signed by the plaintiff did not apply because it was restricted to tournaments rather than league play, the municipality did not breach its duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The court held that the municipality acted reasonably in releasing the field for play given the practical difficulties of adjusting lights in early spring.

Furthermore, the court concluded that the plaintiff, an experienced player, voluntarily assumed the physical and legal risks of playing baseball under the lights, providing a complete defence to the claims.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to deliver an expert economic loss report after the pre-trial conference had been completed.

The motion was brought pursuant to Rules 53.03(4) and 53.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff argued that an accurate economic loss report could not be obtained until the trial date was fixed.

The court rejected both the plaintiff's argument based on the Simplified Procedure and the argument regarding the necessity of a fixed trial date.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the failure to comply with Rule 53.03(2) and dismissed the motion with costs fixed at $3,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident action brought a motion to exclude surveillance evidence, strike the jury notice due to pandemic delays, and require a jury instruction on the statutory deductible.

The court excluded surveillance footage taken on the plaintiff's wedding day, finding its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value, but allowed other footage taken from private parking lots.

The court conditionally struck the jury notice to ensure the trial proceeds on its fixed date even if a jury is unavailable.

The request for a jury instruction on the statutory deductible was dismissed, as the jury's role is to assess damages without regard to the deduction.

The plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident action brought a motion for the disclosure of unedited surveillance videos, surveillance reports, and a social media report in the defendants' possession.

The defendants claimed litigation privilege over the reports and the surveillance footage in which the plaintiff did not appear.

The court ordered the defendants to produce the unedited surveillance videos and social media images they had already partially disclosed, finding waiver of privilege by implication.

However, the court upheld the claim of litigation privilege over the investigator's reports and the surveillance footage where the plaintiff was not seen.

The defendants were also ordered to provide a further and better affidavit of documents detailing the particulars of the privileged surveillance.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend her Statement of Claim and to examine a former employee of the defendant as a non-party witness, after the action had already been set down for trial.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that a change in the law regarding the Consumer Protection Act's application to waivers, the discovery that the witness was no longer employed by the defendant, and the pending summary judgment motion constituted a substantial change in circumstances.

The court also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendant.

Leave to examine the non-party witness was granted with terms to prevent a reopening of discovery.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that found his claim for post-104 income replacement benefits (IRBs) was statute-barred due to a pre-emptive denial by the insurer.

The adjudicator granted the reconsideration, applying the recent Court of Appeal decision in Tomec v. Economical.

The adjudicator found that the limitation period is tied to the accrual of the cause of action and subject to discoverability.

Because the applicant was working full-time and not eligible for IRBs at the time of the pre-emptive denial, the cause of action had not yet accrued.

The preliminary decision was reversed, allowing the applicant to proceed with his claim.

The applicant sought post-104-week income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, arguing the applicant failed to dispute its initial 2013 denial within the two-year limitation period.

The applicant argued the 2013 denial was not clear and unequivocal because it used the word 'eligible' rather than 'entitled' and he had not intended to apply for IRBs at that time.

The Tribunal found the 2013 denial was valid, clear, and unequivocal, triggering the limitation period.

The Tribunal also declined to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the LAT Act due to the significant four-year delay and lack of bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

Following a successful hearing for statutory accident benefits, the applicant sought a special award and costs.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the insurer unreasonably withheld and delayed payments by failing to properly respond to treatment plans, failing to explain why injuries were no longer in the Minor Injury Guideline, and failing to continually adjust the file despite conflicting insurer examination reports.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant a special award of $4,711.77 (representing 30% to 50% of the delayed benefits) plus interest.

Both parties' requests for costs were dismissed, as neither party's conduct rose to the level of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied payment, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 treatment limit under the Minor Injury Guideline, or alternatively, that the injuries were caused by a subsequent accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from a concussion with post-concussive symptoms caused by the first accident, which is not a predominantly minor injury.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for a driving rehabilitation assessment and an occupational therapy assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was awarded interest on overdue payments but denied an award for unreasonable denial, as the insurer's belief regarding the cause of the injuries was reasonable.

This endorsement addresses costs, pre-judgment interest, and collateral benefit deductions following a three-week jury trial in a motor vehicle accident case.

The court determined pre-judgment interest for Meaghan Dunk's general damage award and denied the defendants' request for collateral benefit deductions from her future health care award, emphasizing the strict onus on defendants to prove overlap with statutory accident benefits.

The court also fixed Meaghan Dunk's costs at a substantial indemnity rate from the date of her Rule 49 offer, and partial indemnity prior, and adjusted her disbursements.

For Shelby Dunk, whose claim settled, the court fixed her disbursements.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received attendant care and housekeeping benefits for 104 weeks.

The Insurer then issued a refusal to pay further benefits, citing the 104-week limit.

Over eight years later, the Applicant disputed the refusal, arguing that the limitation period did not apply because he was later deemed catastrophically impaired, which would entitle him to post-104 week benefits.

The Arbitrator held that the Insurer's refusal was clear and unequivocal, and the Applicant missed the two-year limitation period to dispute it.

The Applicant is therefore precluded from proceeding to arbitration regarding his entitlement to these benefits.

Following a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff $108,000 for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision, the defendants brought a threshold motion under the Insurance Act.

The defendants argued the plaintiff failed to prove a permanent serious impairment of an important physical function.

The court preferred the evidence of the plaintiff's chronic pain expert over the defence's orthopaedic surgeon, finding the plaintiff suffered a permanent and serious impairment that prevented her from continuing her employment as an exotic dancer.

The defendants' motion was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, arguing that he would not receive necessary medical and payroll documents in time.

The respondent opposed the request, asserting that the medical issues were irrelevant as the dismissal was for economic reasons.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding it premature and speculative, and noted that document production delays could be addressed through other means such as allowing late production.

Following a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident that resulted in a damages award exceeding $1 million, the court addressed post‑trial issues of costs and pre‑judgment interest.

The statutory third party insurer had denied coverage but fully participated in the litigation under s. 258 of the Insurance Act.

The court held that the insurer’s litigation positions and refusal to accept the plaintiff’s settlement offers necessitated the lengthy trial and justified significant cost consequences.

Pre‑judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act was awarded as claimed.

The court fixed costs in favour of the plaintiffs, including partial indemnity costs to trial and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Following a jury trial awarding damages exceeding $1 million for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiffs sought directions regarding their ability to pursue recovery against the defendant driver's insurer, which had denied coverage and participated in the action as a statutory third party under s. 258(14) of the Insurance Act.

The insurer argued the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek directions and that any claim for insurance proceeds must be brought by a fresh action.

The court held that the judgment creditor effectively stands in the shoes of the insured for purposes of addressing coverage issues and may participate in determining whether relief from forfeiture or coverage applies.

Requiring a new statement of claim would be inefficient where the insurer had fully participated in the litigation and suffered no prejudice.

The court ordered disclosure of the insurer’s basis for denying coverage and directed that the issue proceed by motion before the trial judge.

Following motion proceedings in an appeal-related matter, the moving parties sought partial indemnity costs in the amount of $2,894.78 by written submissions.

The court noted that each procedural step in litigation attracts costs and that the propriety of such costs could be addressed on appeal without requiring the Court of Appeal to fix them directly.

Although the court observed that the requested amount appeared higher than expected and that the issue had become unnecessarily contentious, it acknowledged that time had been expended by counsel.

The court ultimately exercised its discretion to fix costs payable to the moving parties at a reduced amount.

The plaintiffs (respondents on appeal) brought a motion to quash the defendant's appeal to the Divisional Court on the basis that the aggregate judgment amount exceeded the $50,000 monetary jurisdiction threshold.

The defendant argued that only the costs order was being appealed, which was under $50,000, and that a single judge lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion because leave to appeal costs requires a full panel.

The court held that a single judge has jurisdiction to quash an appeal outside the court's monetary jurisdiction.

The court further held that jurisdiction is determined by the aggregate of the sums awarded in the judgment, not just the portion being appealed.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiffs were awarded $137,000 plus interest, the court determined costs.

The plaintiffs' recovery exceeded the defendant's offer to settle of $125,000.

The court found the plaintiffs were the successful parties and awarded them partial indemnity costs.

After reducing fees for duplication and disallowing disbursements for experts who did not testify, the court awarded the plaintiffs $322,500 in costs.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits, which the insurer later terminated.

The applicant applied for arbitration.

The insurer subsequently requested that the applicant attend a medical examination with a respirologist.

The applicant refused, and a preliminary issue hearing was held to determine if the examination was reasonably necessary under section 42 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the examination was not reasonably necessary for claims adjustment, as the insurer had been aware of the applicant's medical condition for years and had already made its adjusting decision.

The arbitration was ordered to proceed as scheduled.

The applicant sought an assessment of his arbitration expenses following a decision that denied his claim for income replacement benefits but allowed his claim for housekeeping expenses.

The applicant claimed $35,691.16 in legal fees and disbursements.

The arbitrator reduced the hourly rate and preparation time claimed by the applicant's counsel, finding them excessive given the complexity of the case and counsel's conduct.

The arbitrator also reduced certain disbursements, including the cost of an accountant's report and travel expenses.

The insurer was ordered to pay the applicant $18,424.74 in arbitration expenses.