Stéphanie Drisdelle

The court reconsidered its previous decision to decline scheduling a summary judgment motion due to the significant and indefinite delays in civil trials caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Initially, the court deemed a trial more efficient, but the changed circumstances rendered trial scheduling unrealistic for the foreseeable future.

Consequently, leave was granted to the defendants to bring a summary judgment motion under Rule 20 to test insurance defences, as this mechanism was now considered more efficient for streamlining issues given the prolonged trial backlog.

Directions were provided for electronic filing and virtual hearing protocols.

This motion concerned the approval of a settlement for three minor plaintiffs and the associated contingency fee agreement.

The court approved the settlement amounts for the minors, finding them reasonable for Family Law Act claims.

However, the contingency fee agreement was not approved due to non-compliance with the Solicitors Act, specifically because it included costs in the fee calculation, rendering it void and unenforceable.

The court directed that legal fees be paid entirely from the adult plaintiffs' portion of the settlement and that the minor plaintiffs' funds be paid into court due to lack of appointed guardians for property and insufficient particulars for proposed Registered Education Savings Plans.

This decision addresses costs following an unsuccessful motion by Tega Homes Developments Inc. to strike amended defences to cross-claims filed by Goodeve Manhire and Paterson Group.

The court had previously permitted the amendments, finding no unfair prejudice.

Tega sought costs for the motion and for "thrown away" trial preparation, alleging delay and an attempt to relitigate insurance coverage.

The court rejected Tega's arguments, noting the amendments were made in accordance with case management directions and that Tega was unsuccessful in resisting them.

Insufficient evidence was presented to demonstrate wasted trial preparation directly attributable to the pleading amendments.

Consequently, the responding parties, Goodeve Manhire and Paterson Group, were awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $12,600.00 and $5,400.00 respectively, payable by Tega Homes Developments Inc.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer follow-up questions from discovery undertakings, produce an insurance policy, and produce instruction letters sent to its expert witness.

The court held that the defendant did not require leave under Rule 48.04 to bring the motion.

The court ordered the plaintiff to answer one of the two follow-up questions and to produce the insurance policy, as it was a subrogated claim and the policy was relevant.

However, the court dismissed the request for the expert's instruction letters, finding they remained protected by litigation privilege and the expert reports already met the requirements of Rule 53.03(2.1).

This decision addresses prejudgment and postjudgment interest and trial costs following a bifurcated damages trial.

The court determined that the plaintiffs' damages award of $1,083,713.26 for diminution in value and lost rental income should be reduced by $436,892.13 in insurance monies received, resulting in a net damage award of $658,054.28.

Tega's Rule 49 offer to settle for $650,000 plus prejudgment interest (totaling $693,754.79) was found to be more favourable than the plaintiffs' net recovery.

Consequently, the plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of Tega's offer (December 29, 2015), and Tega was awarded partial indemnity costs from that date forward.

The court also disallowed expert fees for one of the plaintiffs' experts whose evidence was deemed unhelpful.

Counsel for the defendant Paterson Group Inc. requested that its costs of the Damages Trial be reserved to be determined at the time of the Liability Trial.

The co-defendant Tega Homes Developments Inc., against whom the costs claim would be made due to a cross-claim, consented to the request.

The court granted the request and ordered that the determination of Paterson's costs of the Damages Trial be reserved to the Liability Trial.

This endorsement addresses a request by Goodeve Manhire Inc. and Goodeve Manhire Partners Inc. to reserve the determination of their costs from the Damages Trial until the Liability Trial.

The plaintiffs' action against Goodeve had been dismissed without costs, but Goodeve's cost claim was against Tega Homes Developments Inc. due to a cross-claim.

The court indicated it would grant the reservation if Tega consented or did not oppose.

If Tega opposed, Goodeve was granted an extension to file its costs submissions for the Damages Trial.

The defendant Lumipro Inc. sought summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing the plaintiff Maxrelco Inc. lacked standing as it was a shareholder, not the property owner, and that Lumipro was only hired for repairs, not maintenance.

Maxrelco Inc. brought a cross-motion to amend its Statement of Claim to correct a misnomer, changing the plaintiff to Maxrelco (Immeubles) Inc., the actual property owner.

The court granted Maxrelco's cross-motion, finding it was a misnomer and caused no prejudice to the defendant.

Consequently, the court dismissed Lumipro's summary judgment motion, determining there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the cause of the fire and Lumipro's alleged negligence in sign repair and maintenance.