Ross Donald George William Rollo

The plaintiffs brought a motion to determine the admissibility of a post-surgery photo of the plaintiff's head and a pre-operative CT scan for use in their opening address to the jury in a liability-only trial.

The defendants objected on grounds of relevance and prejudice.

Applying the four-part test from Whitford v. Swan, the court allowed the photo, finding it relevant to explain the plaintiff's lack of memory and not unduly prejudicial, provided it was proven at trial.

However, the CT scan was disallowed due to its narrative commentary and embellishments, which were deemed prejudicial and of low probative value given that damages were settled.

This costs endorsement follows a bifurcated jury trial where liability was determined, finding 92% against the plaintiffs and 8% against the defendants.

The plaintiffs sought approximately $120,000 in partial indemnity costs plus $20,000 in disbursements, while the defendants proposed approximately $40,000 plus disbursements.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $55,000 in partial indemnity costs plus disbursements, noting that the plaintiffs' bill of costs conflated liability and damages issues.

The court commended counsel for their informed approach to bifurcating the trial and suggested that the Civil Rules Committee consider amending the Rules of Civil Procedure to allow judicial discretion in bifurcating liability and damages without party consent.

Two consolidated actions were brought by food industry companies and related parties against their commercial insurer following losses arising from an Indian meal moth infestation.

The first action sought indemnification for lost rental income and a bonus allegedly owed to the principal owner.

The second action sought indemnification for alleged theft of equipment and assets by a court-appointed receiver, resulting in business interruption losses.

The trial judge dismissed the first action entirely, finding the losses were indirect and not covered by the policy.

In the second action, the trial judge dismissed the property claim as time-barred but allowed the business interruption claim to proceed in part by applying a rolling limitation period.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the first action and reversed the trial judge's application of a rolling limitation period to the business interruption claim, finding that the insurer's obligation to indemnify was not a recurring contractual obligation.

Both actions were dismissed in their entirety.

Plus Development Group Corp. brought a motion to oppose the confirmation of a Master's Report, which had awarded Roni Excavating Ltd. $523,241.99 plus costs for excavation work, including extras for the removal of contaminated soil.

Plus Development argued that the Master erred in evidentiary rulings, findings of fact regarding Roni Excavating's knowledge of soil conditions, and the authorization of extras.

The court dismissed Plus Development's motion, confirming the Master's Report, finding no palpable or overriding error in the Master's evidentiary rulings or findings of fact.

The court affirmed that Roni Excavating was entitled to charge for the removal of contaminated material as an extra, as contemplated by the contract and authorized by Plus Development's agent.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order dismissing his claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The motion judge had concluded that the accident was a straightforward rear-end collision and that the appellant, as the rear-ending party, failed to discharge his onus of proving the collision did not arise from his negligence.

The appellant challenged the motion judge's findings on three grounds: improper judicial notice of scientific and technical matters, misapprehension of evidence, and erroneous conclusion that there was no genuine issue requiring trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error in principle or palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment.

Jacobus Hanemaayer was found in contempt of court for wilfully refusing to comply with orders.

Despite claims of poor health and age, he repeatedly failed to appear in court and provided insufficient medical evidence.

The court found his health claims to be a "sham" based on evidence from a process server who observed him operating an electric scooter alone.

Consequently, the court decided against immediate sentencing and instead issued a discretionary bench warrant, requiring Hanemaayer to appear in person to show cause why he should not be sentenced to incarceration for his deliberate and wilful non-compliance with court orders.

The applicant sought a declaration that his home insurer owed both a duty to defend and indemnity exposure in an underlying Family Law Act action arising from a fatal drug overdose on his property.

Applying the three-step framework from Supreme Court of Canada authority, the court characterized the pleaded claims as genuinely grounded in negligence rather than merely relabelled intentional or criminal wrongdoing.

The court held the negligence claims were non-derivative and potentially within policy coverage for negligent acts.

The insurer was therefore required to provide a defence and coverage for non-excluded negligent claims in the underlying action.