Tara Lemke

The applicant insurer brought an urgent motion to stay a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) order that denied an adjournment of an upcoming hearing, pending a judicial review application.

The applicant argued that denying the adjournment violated procedural fairness and the right to counsel of choice, as newly retained counsel was unavailable for the scheduled dates.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried but concluded the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, noting other counsel from the firm might be available.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the respondent, who had been waiting for benefits.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The defendant County brought a motion for further discovery and production of documents in an action arising from a 2009 motor vehicle accident that was not commenced until 2017.

The County sought evidence relevant to a limitation period defence, specifically regarding the plaintiff's capacity and whether a litigation guardian had been appointed earlier.

The court found the plaintiff's affidavit of documents was sufficient and privilege had not been waived.

The court ordered the plaintiff to answer certain refused questions relating to employment records and police calls, but upheld refusals based on solicitor-client privilege and relevance.

The defendant was granted two additional hours of discovery.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motions for summary judgment regarding a prefabricated building dispute, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought $50,000 in elevated costs or $40,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found no basis for elevated costs but awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs.

Noting some excessiveness in the plaintiff's use of two lawyers, the court fixed the costs at $33,000, inclusive of disbursements, to be paid equally by the defendants, and ordered a case conference to manage outstanding issues.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action regarding the defective construction of a storage building.

The defendants argued they owed no duty of care because they followed the plaintiff's specifications for ventilation, and that the action was statute-barred.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendants failed to meet their evidentiary burden to show there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding their duty of care and reliance.

The court also found the evidence did not establish the claim was discovered outside the two-year limitation period.