Sarah Reisler

The court considered a motion by the Crown in Right of Ontario (on behalf of the OPP) to dismiss all claims against it for lack of notice under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, and a cross-motion by Certas Home and Auto Insurance to compel further discovery.

The court struck the plaintiff’s claim against the Crown for lack of notice but allowed Certas’ crossclaim to continue, holding that the statutory notice requirement does not apply to crossclaims.

The court also ordered Constable Khabra to re-attend for discovery to answer questions arising from undertakings, and addressed the requirements for Crown witness designation.

Costs were fixed in favour of Certas.

The plaintiff sought substantial costs following a jury trial where she was awarded modest damages for a motor vehicle accident, despite claiming over $1,000,000.

The defendant had made no monetary offer to settle prior to trial.

The court awarded the plaintiff $300,000 in costs, disbursements, and HST, reducing the plaintiff's requested amount due to proportionality and excessive counsel.

The judge criticized the defendant's "hardball" litigation strategy of offering zero, finding it unreasonable and wasteful of court resources, and emphasized that such conduct necessitated the trial.

This ruling addresses motions brought by both the plaintiff and the defendant during a jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff moved to strike a jury question regarding contributory negligence, arguing a lack of reasonable evidence.

The defendant moved to strike or amend jury questions concerning past and future income loss, asserting insufficient particularization and speculative nature.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that there was reasonable evidence to allow all questions to proceed to the jury.

The judge determined that the jury could reasonably infer contributory negligence from the plaintiff's testimony and that sufficient evidence, including actuarial testimony and employment history, supported the income loss claims, even without specific retirement dates or exhaustive employment scenarios.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff's damages were reduced to zero due to statutory deductibles and failure to meet the verbal threshold, the defendant sought costs of $165,000.

The plaintiff argued for no costs based on impecuniosity and access to justice.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, noting the claim's lack of success and the plaintiff's access to specialized counsel on a contingency fee.

Costs were awarded to the defendant in the requested amount of $165,000.

Following a jury verdict awarding general damages to the plaintiff in a motor vehicle collision action, the court heard a threshold motion to determine if the plaintiff's claim surpassed the verbal threshold under the Insurance Act.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function as a result of the accident.

Credibility issues regarding the plaintiff's post-accident work activities contributed to this finding.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for general damages was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion seeking to enforce an arbitration clause, dismiss or stay the action, or alternatively, for summary judgment on limitation period grounds or to determine no cause of action against the individual defendant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants had unduly delayed in bringing the motion and that the limitation period for commencing arbitration had not expired when the action was initiated.

The court also determined that the intentional tort claim against the individual defendant fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.

The defendant general contractor brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss a subrogated claim for flood damages, arguing it was barred by a prior Settlement and Release Agreement executed with the plaintiff property owner.

The court found that while the plaintiff and its property manager were sufficiently intertwined to be bound by the agreement, the objective factual matrix demonstrated the agreement was intended only to resolve uninsured, out-of-pocket expenses between the corporations directly.

The agreement did not encompass or extinguish the subrogated claims advanced by the plaintiffs' insurer.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice in a motor vehicle accident action, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic would cause significant delay if the matter proceeded before a jury.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide cogent evidence of prejudice or that the delay in the Toronto Region would be significant once the suspension of civil jury trials was lifted.

The court held that justice to the parties would not be better served by striking the jury notice.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce a $125,000 settlement agreement in a motor vehicle accident claim.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing she never instructed her former counsel to accept the offer and that she suffered from psychological impairments that affected her ability to provide informed consent.

The court found that the communications between the plaintiff and her former counsel lacked clarity, particularly regarding the net amount the plaintiff would receive.

Given the plaintiff's documented chronic pain and psychological impairments, the court concluded that enforcing the settlement would create a real risk of clear injustice.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff's action for damages from a motor vehicle accident was dismissed after a jury award for lost income and general damages was netted to zero due to deductions for income replacement benefits and the statutory deductible.

The defendants, being wholly successful, sought partial indemnity costs of $160,000.

The plaintiff argued costs should be limited to her $100,000 adverse costs insurance policy and that the defendant's settlement offers were unreasonable.

The court found adverse costs insurance irrelevant and the defendant's settlement offers reasonable, fixing costs at $160,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable by the plaintiff.