Wendy Breuer

Following scheduling of a summary judgment motion over approximately $10,000 to $13,000 in income replacement benefits, the plaintiff withdrew the motion after producing information and the insurer agreed to pay the benefits sought, subject to a possible dispute over retroactive quantum.

Both sides sought costs.

The court held that both parties were responsible for disproportionate and inefficient motion practice, with the plaintiff slow to disclose relevant corporate structure information and the insurer demanding excessive production inconsistent with proportionality.

Emphasizing the required culture shift toward cooperative, proportionate litigation conduct, the court declined to award costs to either side.

In an accident benefits dispute, the plaintiff sought summary judgment for $13,000 in income replacement benefits after mediation had failed on that claim, while disputes over attendant care and medical rehabilitation benefits remained ongoing.

The insurer maintained that entitlement turned on whether the plaintiff was an employee or self-employed and sought additional employment-related information.

The court scheduled the summary judgment motion but emphasized proportionality, noting that the proposed process was not affordable relative to the amount in issue.

Counsel were directed to arrange a focused meeting with the insurer's financial advisor and the employer's president to resolve the factual dispute efficiently, with the court remaining available to assist summarily on consent.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing her motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff was injured in an altercation with another guest at a house party hosted by the moving party.

The motion judge found that whether the moving party's role engendered a duty of care under the principles of social host liability was a genuine issue for trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, agreeing that there was some evidence that could support a finding of responsibility and that the threshold test for leave to appeal was not met.