Sherilyn J. Pickering

The defendant, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, moved for an order requiring the plaintiff’s accident benefits insurer to produce a file relating to a 2011 motor vehicle accident, arguing its relevance to a 2017 accident at issue in the present action.

The court found the moving party failed to establish either the relevance of the documents or that it would be unfair to proceed to trial without them, and dismissed the motion.

The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The defendants, Turgut Askar and Beck Taxi Ltd., brought a motion to change the trial venue from Barrie to Toronto.

The plaintiff, Leela Rampersad, opposed the motion.

The court granted the defendants' motion, finding that Toronto was a "substantially better" venue given the location of the motor vehicle accident, the residences of the parties and most potential witnesses, and the plaintiff's connections to Toronto for employment and medical treatment.

The only connection to Barrie was the location of the plaintiff's counsel.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against TD Canada Trust, arguing errors regarding the availability of summary judgment in civil jury actions, the exclusion of expert evidence, and procedural fairness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Hryniak test for summary judgment applies equally to civil jury actions, the motion judge properly excluded the expert evidence, and the process was procedurally fair.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer a personal injury action from Barrie to Toronto.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing it was brought late and for tactical reasons.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the defendants failed to raise the issue until after the pretrial conference and that transferring the action to Toronto would result in significant delay in securing a trial date.

The applicant sought court approval for an accident benefit settlement.

The court previously identified deficiencies and concerns regarding the allocation of settlement funds, legal fees, and a solicitor's loan.

Following a capacity assessment report indicating the applicant was not mentally incapable, the court noted that judicial approval was not required.

The court requested an explanation from the applicant's counsel regarding a prior representation to the Licence Appeal Tribunal that a court order had appointed a litigation guardian, and a copy of any such order, before considering dismissing the application without costs.

This motion concerned an application for judicial approval of a settlement for statutory accident benefits (SABS) for a catastrophically injured claimant who lacked capacity to instruct counsel.

The court expressed significant concerns regarding the adequacy of the proposed settlement amount, the fairness and applicability of the contingency fee agreement to a SABS claim, the claimant's capacity at the time of signing the fee agreement and various loans, and the absence of a proper management plan for the lump sum payment.

The court refused to approve the settlement as proposed and referred the matter to the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee for further input, remaining seized of the matter.

The court denied approval of a settlement for a party under disability due to significant deficiencies in the motion material.

These deficiencies included insufficient medical evidence to assess the injured party's present and future needs, lack of full disclosure regarding a companion tort action and any settlement offers therein, and inadequate details for the proposed allocation of settlement funds.

Furthermore, the court found insufficient information regarding a loan from counsel to the applicant and the fairness and reasonableness of the contingency fee agreement, which appeared to conflate tort and accident benefits claims.

The court also dismissed the request to seal the court record, emphasizing the high bar for such an extraordinary order.

The matter was to be re-submitted after the identified deficiencies were addressed.

The plaintiff's counsel sought an adjournment of a long motion brought by the defendant to dismiss a class action.

The adjournment was requested primarily due to the recent retention of outside counsel who was unavailable, among other reasons.

The court reluctantly granted the adjournment, criticizing plaintiff's counsel's conduct for causing needless delay and wasting judicial resources, but found it necessary to prevent irreparable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court emphasized that retaining new counsel on the eve of a hearing will not constitute exceptional circumstances for future adjournments.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded against the plaintiff's counsel.

This decision addresses the costs of a prior motion concerning the plaintiff's requests for additional documents and answers to undertakings and refusals.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs, arguing for divided success as fourteen questions were ordered answered.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs, citing the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct in attempting to re-litigate proportionality issues, asking questions beyond the scope of follow-up undertakings, and providing an incomplete motion record.

The court found the defendant largely successful on the substantive issues, particularly regarding the plaintiff's attempts to re-litigate and expand the scope of discovery.

While the plaintiff achieved some success in obtaining answers to specific questions, the overall conduct and the defendant's success on major points warranted a costs award against the plaintiff.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant $2,500.00 in costs.

This endorsement addresses the plaintiff's late service of three expert reports, despite previous directions for one, in advance of a summary judgment motion.

The court expressed concerns about delay and good faith, cancelling a conference call and directing an in-person appearance to determine the admissibility of the reports, the plaintiff's reliance on multiple experts, and potential schedule adjustments.

This endorsement addresses a case management motion concerning outstanding follow-up questions from discovery and the timing of the plaintiff's expert report.

The plaintiff sought further answers from the defendant, TD Canada Trust, regarding security protocols and risk assessments following an alleged assault at an ATM vestibule.

The court applied principles of proportionality and finality, rejecting many of the plaintiff's requests for information deemed beyond the scope of appropriate discovery or based on information that should have been obtained earlier.

The court also found the plaintiff responsible for significant delays in the litigation and ordered the expert report to be produced promptly, with strict timelines, while allowing for a supplemental report if new information warranted it.

The Plaintiff sought leave to bring a Rule 30.10 motion for third-party records production from other banks, which the Defendant opposed.

The court found the Plaintiff's delay in bringing the motion unreasonable due to counsel's dilatory conduct in retaining and instructing an expert.

Despite the unreasonable delay and potential for further adjournment of the summary judgment motion, the court reluctantly granted leave to the Plaintiff to bring the motion on terms, including payment of costs to the Defendant, to avoid prejudicing the Plaintiff due to counsel's failures.

The plaintiff brought a motion to substitute Zachary M. Taylor for the defendant John Doe and to add TD Insurance Meloch Monnex a.k.a.

Primmum Insurance Company as a named defendant, seeking leave to amend the statement of claim.

Primmum opposed being added, arguing the limitation period had expired under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court granted the unopposed substitution of Zachary M. Taylor.

Regarding Primmum, the court applied the discovery rule for claims against insurers, holding that the limitation period for adding an insurer under OAP 1 coverage commences the day after the plaintiff makes a demand for coverage, not at the time of the accident or the initial statement of claim.

Finding that the plaintiff had put Primmum on notice, the court determined the limitation period had not expired.

The motion to add Primmum and amend the claim was granted, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer the action from Barrie to Milton, arguing that the case had no connection to Barrie other than the plaintiff's counsel being located there.

The plaintiff opposed the transfer, citing significant prejudice due to the potential loss of an imminent trial date in Barrie.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, finding that while Milton would normally be a more appropriate venue based on the location of the accident and parties, the impending trial date and the defendant's dilatory conduct in bringing the motion and completing expert reports were overriding factors.

The court also confirmed the ongoing issues with court facilities in Milton, which favour leaving the action in Barrie.

The defendant in two separate actions arising from the same motor vehicle accident moved to have the actions tried together or sequentially, and to transfer the venue of one action from North Bay to Sudbury.

The court dismissed the motion to try the actions together as premature, noting that one action was at a much more advanced stage than the other.

The court also dismissed the motion to change venue, finding that the plaintiff's choice of North Bay was reasonable and the defendant failed to show that Sudbury was a significantly better venue.

The motions were dismissed without prejudice to being renewed closer to trial.