Surina Sud

The plaintiffs moved to strike the jury notice of the defendant Gill on the basis that the Corporation of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula, a municipality, was a party to the litigation.

Section 108(2)(1)(xii) of the Courts of Justice Act prohibits jury trials where relief is sought against a municipality.

The defendant Gill sought a "conditional" striking, arguing the jury notice should only be struck if the town remained a litigant at trial.

The court rejected this, finding no substantive reason to delay striking the notice, as the town's potential withdrawal was speculative.

The court distinguished this statutory prohibition from temporary prohibitions (e.g., during the COVID-19 pandemic) where a "wait and see" approach might be appropriate.

The court also noted that allowing the case to remain in the jury stream would cause significant delay, conferring an unfair tactical advantage.

The jury notice was struck, and the defendant Gill was ordered to pay costs to the plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion to correct the name of a defendant from Ali Al-Shammari to Enad Al-Shammari and to add West-Way Taxi Nepean Ltd. as an additional defendant.

The Defendants consented to the name correction but opposed adding West-Way.

The Defendants also brought a cross-motion to compel the Plaintiffs to specify the amount of damages claimed in their Statement of Claim.

The court granted the Plaintiffs' motion, finding that the discoverability principle applied to the addition of West-Way, and dismissed the Defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the Plaintiffs were not yet obligated to particularize damages at the pleadings stage given the early stage of the proceedings.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice in a motor vehicle accident action, citing delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendants opposed, arguing the plaintiff required leave under Rule 48.04 as the action was already set down for trial, and that the action was not ready for trial due to outstanding undertakings.

The court granted leave, finding the pandemic constituted a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances.

The court conditionally struck the jury notice, ordering that if a jury trial cannot be accommodated during the January 2022 sittings in Brampton, the trial will proceed before a judge alone to avoid undue delay.

This endorsement addresses the costs of two successful motions brought by the plaintiffs, Barry Picov and Picov Farms Ltd. The first motion sought to amend their Statement of Claim to substitute Robar Residence Corporation as plaintiff, and the second sought to set aside an ex parte costs order against them in favour of Genserve Systems Inc. The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs for both aspects of their motion, finding that while the plaintiffs' counsel bore some responsibility for the initial error and evidential record, the defendants' opposition was not entirely justified, particularly Genserve's stance on setting aside the ex parte order.

Total costs of $19,689 were awarded to the plaintiffs, apportioned among the defendants.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions and provide documents refused at discovery, primarily relating to a prior 1999 motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the prior records were irrelevant.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce the requested statement of claim, employment details, medical records, and medical/legal reports, finding them relevant to potential thin-skull or crumbling-skull issues.

The court also ordered the defendants to produce cell phone records and inquire about surveillance as requested by the plaintiff.

The defendant insurer brought a motion to compel the production of academic, psychoeducational, and treatment records of a plaintiff's sibling for a neuropsychological evaluation concerning causation, specifically genetic vulnerability.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing the documents were irrelevant and the expert's need was not properly established.

The court granted the motion, finding the documents relevant and necessary for an informed expert opinion, distinguishing the plaintiffs' cited case, and noting the plaintiffs' own expert acknowledged potential genetic vulnerability.