Tijana Potkonjak

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to extend time for service of her statement of claim and for trial.

The defendant, as the successful party on the prior motion, sought partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff argued against a costs award, citing modest means and alleged negligence by the defendant and her previous lawyer.

The court affirmed the general rule that costs follow the event and are typically awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

It found no special circumstances to deviate from this principle, noting the plaintiff's insufficient evidence of impecuniosity and that alleged negligence of prior counsel was not a relevant factor in this costs determination.

The court awarded the defendant $14,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The applicant, William David George Whitfield, initiated a Will Challenge against the estate of Tamara Leigh Whitfield, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by the respondent, Donald Murray Glover.

The respondent moved to dismiss the challenge, while the applicant cross-moved for production of medical records and preservation of a Facebook account.

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the minimum evidentiary threshold for both lack of capacity and undue influence, dismissing the Will Challenge.

Consequently, the applicant's cross-motion was rendered moot and dismissed.

Costs were awarded against the applicant, with a portion payable from the estate and a portion personally.

This endorsement addresses two motions in a motor vehicle accident claim.

First, The Co-Operators General Insurance Company successfully moved to be added as a third party under s. 258(14) of the Insurance Act, having denied liability to its insured, the defendant driver, for failing to disclose his Uber driving activities.

Second, the plaintiff successfully moved to amend his statement of claim to increase his loss of income claim and add Uber Canada Inc. as a defendant.

The court found the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence in discovering his claim against Uber, rejecting arguments that the claim was time-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, but reserving Uber's right to plead a limitations defence at trial or summary judgment.