Taras Adam Kuper

The plaintiff sought leave to amend the statement of claim to limit damages to $200,000 (the statutory minimum insurance limit) and continue the action under simplified procedure.

The defendant insurer opposed the motion, arguing it was premature and that the loss of the right to a jury trial constituted non-compensable prejudice.

The court granted the amendment, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate non-compensable prejudice and that the defendant's own pleading acknowledged the $200,000 limit and simplified procedure applicability.

The jury notice was struck as a necessary consequence of proceeding under simplified procedure.

A construction lien claimant brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement with homeowners who had failed to make payment by the agreed deadline.

The homeowners, initially represented by counsel but later self-represented, argued the settlement was not binding due to lack of voluntary and informed consent, fundamental mistake, and procedural unfairness at the settlement conference.

The court found that a binding settlement had been reached through objective evidence of mutual intention and agreement on all essential terms.

The homeowners were represented by counsel throughout negotiations and signed minutes of settlement twice without raising concerns.

The court rejected arguments regarding lack of informed consent, ineffective representation, and procedural unfairness, finding no compelling circumstances warranting non-enforcement.

Judgment was granted in accordance with the settlement terms.

The Representative Plaintiffs in a certified class action sought leave to dismiss the action due to a lack of reasonable prospect of success after an expert report undermined their case.

The Defendants did not oppose the dismissal but sought substantial partial indemnity costs for a withdrawn summary judgment motion and for defending the class action.

The Class Proceedings Fund, responsible for adverse costs, argued the Defendants' costs claim was excessive.

The court granted leave to dismiss the action and awarded the Defendants $300,000 in total partial indemnity costs, significantly less than the $750,025.31 sought by the Defendants but more than the $65,000 proposed by the Fund.