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 plaintiff condominium corporation brought motions to extend the set down deadline in a 2012 construction deficiency action and to have a related 2017 solicitor's negligence action tried together with it.

The defendants in the construction action cross-moved to dismiss for delay.

The court granted the extension peremptorily to December 31, 2023, finding the delay adequately explained and no actual prejudice to the defendants.

The court dismissed the motion to try the actions together and instead stayed the solicitor's negligence action, finding the construction action significantly more complex and that a stay would prevent unnecessary duplication of resources.

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.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) seeking an order for the payment of a volume bonus commission prior to trial in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff sought leave to introduce extensive affidavit evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the interpretation of the employment agreement in light of alleged code of conduct breaches raised a question of mixed fact and law, not a pure question of law.

The court noted the motion was effectively an improper attempt to bypass the procedural requirements of a Rule 20 summary judgment motion, including mandatory attendance at Civil Practice Court, and warned against the risks of partial summary judgment.