Wilfrid Menninga

This action arose from a fatal motor vehicle accident involving a tractor and a passenger van.

The main action settled, leaving a third-party claim by the defendants (tractor operator and owner) against the Township of Cramahe for contribution and indemnity.

The defendants alleged the Township was negligent and breached its statutory duty by failing to maintain Telephone Road in a reasonable state of repair, specifically by not painting a centerline.

The court found that the absence of a centerline constituted a state of non-repair, as it was required by the Ontario Traffic Manual guidelines.

However, the court ultimately dismissed the third-party claim, finding that the defendants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that 'but for' the absence of the centerline, the accident would not have occurred.

The court concluded that the driver of the van either never identified the tractor as a hazard or did not have sufficient time to react, and the centerline would have made no difference.

The court determined costs following a successful summary judgment motion by the Belleville defendants, dismissing the action against them.

The plaintiffs sought to defer the costs decision or reduce the quantum, arguing potential Bullock/Sanderson orders, impecuniosity, and public interest litigation.

The court dismissed the deferral request, finding no exceptional circumstances to deviate from the normative approach to costs.

It found the plaintiffs were of modest means but not impecunious, requiring robust evidence for such a claim.

The court also rejected the "pro bono litigant" analogy for parties represented under a contingency fee agreement, citing the Solicitors Act.

Ultimately, costs were fixed at $47,801.47, jointly and severally against the plaintiffs, reflecting a reduction from the partial indemnity amount due to the plaintiffs' modest means and access to justice considerations.

The Belleville police defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action against them for negligent investigation, false imprisonment, wrongful arrest, and Charter breaches.

The plaintiffs had been arrested for possession of property obtained by crime after picking up merchandise from Lowe's that was ordered using fraudulent credit cards.

The court granted the motion, finding that the claims for false arrest and Charter breaches were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Furthermore, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the negligent investigation claim, as the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charges and met the standard of care of a reasonable police officer.

Police defendants brought a motion to strike numerous paragraphs of an affidavit filed by plaintiffs’ counsel in response to a pending summary judgment motion in a civil action alleging negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and Charter breaches.

The impugned affidavit summarized discovery evidence, relied on hearsay and discovery transcripts of multiple parties, and included argument, opinion, and allegedly inflammatory allegations.

The court reviewed the admissibility of affidavit evidence under the Rules of Civil Procedure, including rules governing hearsay, discovery evidence on motions, and improper argument in affidavits.

The court permitted reliance on certain discovery transcripts already filed by the moving parties and allowed narrative evidence derived from other parties’ discovery where proportionality and fairness warranted.

However, numerous passages containing argument, opinion, speculation, or inflammatory allegations were struck.