R. Uukkvi

The moving parties sought leave to bring a motion after the action had been set down for trial and requested consolidation of their action against a municipal official with a related municipal damages action.

The court considered Rule 48.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding post‑set‑down motions and concluded that leave should be granted due to trial fairness concerns arising from a recent change of counsel and incomplete preparation for trial.

The court then applied Rule 6.01 and s. 138 of the Courts of Justice Act to determine whether consolidation was appropriate.

Despite the respondent’s argument that the proceedings were at different procedural stages and consolidation would cause delay, the court found significant overlap in factual issues, witnesses, and potential findings.

Consolidation was ordered to avoid inconsistent results and to promote efficient use of judicial resources.

Following the dismissal of an action seeking a declaration that a public road existed along the shoreline of Georgian Bay properties, several defendant groups sought costs.

The defendants argued for substantial indemnity costs based on alleged misconduct by the municipality, while the plaintiff contended that costs should be limited and apportioned globally among defendants.

The court rejected the claim for substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiff.

Applying Rule 57.01 principles, the court assessed partial indemnity costs individually for each successful defendant group, reducing some claims to account for duplication, inefficiencies, and unsupported expert disbursements.

Costs were awarded separately to the defendants in amounts the court found reasonable and proportionate.