S. Baldwin

The defendants' solicitor of record brought a motion to be removed due to a complete breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The defendant, acting in person, agreed with the removal and orally requested an adjournment of the upcoming trial to retain new counsel.

The 90-year-old plaintiff opposed the adjournment due to prejudice from delay.

The court granted the motion to remove the solicitor and adjourned the trial, but ordered an interim distribution of $90,000 from the estate to the plaintiff to mitigate prejudice.

The defendants in a motor vehicle accident claim brought a motion to add an independent winter maintenance contractor as a third party.

The Crown and the proposed third party opposed the motion, arguing the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act.

The court granted the motion, finding that the claim was not discoverable until the Crown finally produced patrol records and a representative for discovery, having previously failed to plead the contractor's existence or provide timely disclosure.

The court held that the defendants exercised reasonable diligence and rebutted the presumption of knowledge.

The defendant dentist brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' dental malpractice action, arguing there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on causation.

The defendant relied on two Rule 53.03 compliant expert reports stating the dental procedure did not cause the plaintiff's infective endocarditis.

The plaintiffs relied on the opinion of the plaintiff's treating cardiologist, who opined the defendant did not wait long enough for prophylactic antibiotics to take effect.

The court found the treating cardiologist was a 'participant expert' whose opinion was admissible without complying with Rule 53.03.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, holding that a trial was required to resolve the competing medical opinions on causation.

Following a four‑week jury trial arising from a motor vehicle collision caused by an impaired driver, the plaintiffs obtained a damages verdict of $220,000 but a much smaller net judgment after statutory deductions and accident benefits offsets.

Both parties sought costs, relying on competing Rule 49 settlement offers and arguments concerning proportionality and the impact of statutory deductibles.

The court held that statutory deductibles are not considered when determining entitlement to costs and rejected the defendant’s argument that its offers were more favourable.

After reviewing the complexity of the trial, expert evidence, motions, and proportionality considerations, the court fixed the plaintiffs’ costs at $250,000 in fees plus $126,598.48 in disbursements and applicable HST.

The court further concluded that recent amendments to the Insurance Act affecting cost calculations should not apply retroactively to this litigation.

Following a jury award in a personal injury action, the parties sought clarification of the terms of judgment concerning deductions for statutory accident benefits relating to housekeeping expenses and disclosure of litigation insurance.

The defendant argued that housekeeping benefits previously received under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule should be deducted from both past and future housekeeping awards.

The plaintiffs submitted that benefits for past housekeeping could only be deducted from the jury’s award for past housekeeping losses and not from future losses.

The court accepted the plaintiffs’ position, holding that past benefits cannot be deducted from future losses, and confirmed the higher judgment amount.

The defendant’s request for disclosure of litigation insurance was found to be premature and unnecessary at that stage.

Following a civil jury verdict arising from a motor vehicle accident, the court was asked to settle the terms of judgment including deductions for statutory accident benefits, the applicable statutory deductible under the Insurance Act, and the appropriate prejudgment interest rate.

The defendant sought to deduct the full amount allocated to income replacement benefits in a prior accident benefits settlement, while the plaintiffs argued only amounts clearly matching the jury award should be deducted.

The court held the settlement allocation for income replacement benefits was binding and deductible.

However, it accepted the plaintiffs’ position that the increased statutory deductible introduced shortly before trial should not apply retrospectively, maintaining the earlier deductible amount.

Exercising discretion under the Courts of Justice Act, the court also set prejudgment interest at 3%.

The defendant brought a threshold motion under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act arguing the injured plaintiff had not sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function following a motor vehicle collision.

Conflicting medical evidence was presented regarding chronic pain, psychiatric impairment, and the causal connection between the collision and the plaintiff’s symptoms.

The court accepted expert evidence linking facet joint injuries and chronic pain to the accident and found the plaintiff’s condition substantially interfered with his ability to perform the heavy physical duties of his construction business.

The court also rejected suggestions that the plaintiff was malingering.

The plaintiff met the statutory threshold for non‑pecuniary damages.