Susanne M. Sviergula

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a registrar’s administrative dismissal of a personal injury action for delay.

The court reviewed the contextual factors governing reinstatement of dismissed actions, including promptness of the motion, explanation for delay, inadvertence, abandonment of the claim, and prejudice to the defendants.

Although the explanations for litigation delay were weak, the court found evidence that the plaintiff continued to pursue the action through efforts to answer undertakings and had not abandoned the claim.

The defendants’ evidence of prejudice, including alleged fading memories, was found to be vague and insufficient to outweigh the interests of justice in determining the matter on its merits.

The registrar’s dismissal order was therefore set aside and the action permitted to proceed subject to an expedited timetable.

Following a successful motion setting aside an administrative dismissal and permitting amendments to the statement of claim, the court addressed costs.

The moving party sought partial indemnity costs after obtaining substantive relief on the underlying motion.

The court reviewed the parties’ submissions and applied the Rule 57 factors, emphasizing that defendants opposing administrative dismissal motions may face costs exposure depending on the evidentiary record and circumstances.

The court found the moving party’s request reasonable and rejected arguments that insurer involvement should preclude costs.

Costs were fixed at an all‑inclusive partial indemnity amount of $12,500 payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a registrar’s administrative dismissal for delay and sought leave to amend its statement of claim in a negligence and breach of contract action arising from engineering services related to sewer system upgrades.

The court applied the contextual approach governing the setting aside of administrative dismissals, considering factors such as the explanation for delay, prejudice, and the intention to proceed with the action.

The court accepted that the failure to meet the set-down deadline resulted from inadvertence by counsel and that the plaintiff provided an adequate explanation for litigation delays in a complex, document-heavy matter.

The plaintiff successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice arising from the expiry of a limitation period.

Leave to amend was largely granted as the amendments primarily particularized existing claims, though certain allegations relating to an earlier environmental study report constituted a potential new cause of action and were allowed subject to the defendant’s right to raise a limitation defence.

The Crown appealed a trial judgment that apportioned liability equally between the Crown and the respondents for a 1974 helicopter crash caused by a cracked rotor blade.

The Crown argued that the respondents' negligence in inspecting the blade severed any causal link to the Crown's prior negligence, and challenged the trial judge's quantification of damages.

The respondents cross-appealed, arguing the Crown should bear most of the responsibility, and appealed the awards for prejudgment interest and costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in apportioning liability 50/50, assessing damages, or exercising discretion on costs and interest.