Ryan John Coughlin

This motion concerned the approval of a settlement for the minor plaintiff's Family Law Act claim, arising from a vehicle collision.

The court initially sought additional evidence regarding the minor's claim for loss of care, guidance, and companionship, as the proposed $40,000 settlement was solely for the mother.

Supplementary evidence confirmed the minor's life remained undisturbed and he required no treatment despite his mother's 51-day hospitalization.

The court was satisfied the settlement was in the minor's best interests and complied with Rule 7.08, granting the approval.

This ruling addresses costs following a motion brought by the defendant Bryan Huber to compel the plaintiff to attend two defence medical examinations.

The court initially ordered the plaintiff to attend one examination and reserved on the second, pending the plaintiff's decision to abandon psychological injury and income loss claims.

The plaintiff subsequently provided written instructions to abandon these claims, leading the court to grant an amendment to the Statement of Claim and deem the second medical assessment unnecessary.

The defendant was awarded costs of the motion in the amount of $4,000.

This trial concerned whether Amanda Bowman had the implied consent of her mother, Christina Bowman, to drive her vehicle, which was involved in an accident with the plaintiff, Barbara Watts.

Liability and damages were agreed upon, with the sole issue being implied consent under the Highway Traffic Act.

The court found that Christina Bowman successfully demonstrated that Amanda Bowman did not have her implied consent, thereby absolving Christina Bowman of owner's liability.

Consequently, Western Assurance Company, the plaintiff's insurer, was ordered to pay the agreed damages and costs to the plaintiff, with statutory subrogation rights against Amanda Bowman.

The defendants brought a motion seeking further discovery, production of documents, and an adjournment of the trial, citing a substantial change in the plaintiff's family circumstances impacting future care costs.

The court granted leave for the motion and ordered the plaintiff to attend a further examination for discovery, limited to three hours and focused on specific questions regarding his wife.

However, the requests for a further affidavit of documents and an adjournment of the trial were dismissed.

Costs were reserved to the trial judge.

The plaintiff moved to amend a statement of claim arising from a motor vehicle collision by removing the existing defendants and adding a new defendant alleged to be the correct tortfeasor.

The motion was brought after the expiry of the two‑year limitation period, with the plaintiff arguing the claim was only discovered upon reviewing disclosure materials indicating another driver caused the collision.

The court applied the discoverability principles governing motions to add parties and held that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of reasonable diligence in identifying the proper defendant within the limitation period.

The evidentiary record did not explain the delay in retaining counsel or the steps taken to determine the identity of the responsible driver.

The motion to add the proposed defendant was therefore dismissed, although the existing defendants were removed from the action.

The applicant insurer sought a declaration that the respondent insured breached statutory conditions 4(1) and 1(1) of its automobile policy after an employee, who did not hold a valid driver's licence, was involved in an accident while driving a company van.

The insurer argued the insured failed to verify the employee's licence and failed to report a material change in risk.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the insured acted reasonably in assuming the employee was licensed, as he had driven his own vehicle to work for ten years and was not hired as a driver.

The court also found no material change in risk, as the employee's use of the company van was infrequent and not habitual.

The appellant insurer appealed a decision finding no genuine issue for trial regarding whether a specific individual was an owner of a vehicle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding on the merits.

Additionally, the Court held that the appellant lacked standing to pursue the claim because it had not paid its insured and thus was not subrogated to the plaintiff's rights.