Shahen A. Alexanian

The plaintiff rented his home for a film production, during which his floor was scratched.

He previously arbitrated a claim for $680,000 against the production company and was awarded $49,668.38.

Dissatisfied with the award, the plaintiff commenced a new action against different defendants (Warner Bros. entities) seeking over $500,000 for the same damage.

The defendants moved to strike the claim as an abuse of process.

The court granted the motion, finding that section 139 of the Courts of Justice Act does not permit a plaintiff to relitigate a fully adjudicated claim simply because they are dissatisfied with the damages awarded in the first proceeding.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice in a personal injury action.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, civil jury trials in the Central East Region were suspended until well into 2022.

The court granted the motion, finding that the prejudice to the plaintiff caused by further delay outweighed the defendants' right to a jury trial, especially given the age of the case and previous adjournments.

The plaintiff brought an action under the Occupiers' Liability Act after falling on a rubber fingertip mat in the vestibule of the defendant's premises.

The defendant moved for summary judgment.

The court found that the defendant met the standard of care, as the mat was a standard commercial mat, in good repair, and subject to reasonable seasonal and daily inspection protocols.

Furthermore, the court rejected the plaintiff's expert evidence and found the plaintiff failed to prove that the mat caused her fall, noting she was wearing high wedge-heeled shoes and the video evidence contradicted her account.

The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

Following a jury trial where liability was admitted, the jury awarded the plaintiff $30,000 in damages.

However, the court granted the defendants' threshold motion, finding the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory exceptions under the Insurance Act, resulting in a nil judgment.

Both parties sought costs.

The court held that because the plaintiff obtained a nil judgment, the cost consequences of Rule 49.10 did not apply.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, the court awarded the successful defendants their costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $32,500.