Ryan Caesar

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add the statutory third party insurer as a defendant and to seek declaratory relief regarding coverage.

The insurer opposed the motion, arguing it would cause prejudice, was untenable in law, and constituted an abuse of process that would eviscerate an insurer's statutory right to defend claims.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no non-compensable prejudice, that the declaratory relief sought had practical utility, and that the proposed amendments did not constitute an abuse of process.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motions for summary judgment, the court determined the costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs based on an unaccepted offer to settle the motions.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, noting that Rule 49.10 does not provide a responding party much incentive to make an offer to settle in advance of a motion.

The court fixed the plaintiff's costs on a partial indemnity basis at $38,328, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, to be paid equally by the three moving party groups.

The defendants jointly brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's slip and fall personal injury claim.

The plaintiff slipped on ice while attempting to enter a bridal store.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the factual record was highly disputed and the electronic materials filed by the parties were voluminous, unorganized, and lacked necessary hyperlinks.

The court emphasized that summary judgment is inappropriate when the record does not allow the judge to confidently make findings of fact, and strongly criticized the profession's failure to properly prepare electronic motion records.

The insurer moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim under unidentified automobile coverage arising from a multi-vehicle collision involving an alleged unknown driver.

The court applied the Rule 20 framework and held the evidentiary record was insufficient to determine that one of the identified defendants would necessarily be at least 1 percent liable, particularly where the insurer relied on a deficient affidavit and the other defendants expressly denied liability.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial and declined to use the enhanced fact-finding powers.

The court also rejected the insurer's alternative proposals to abstain from mandatory litigation steps or to be dismissed without prejudice, and awarded the plaintiff costs.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion for summary judgment, which had argued that the plaintiff's claim for unpaid legal fees was statute-barred.

The Divisional Court denied leave, finding no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.

The court noted that the defendants' undertakings to protect the plaintiff's account likely estopped them from relying on a limitation period defence, and suggested the matter proceed to a summary trial.