William Joseph Jesseau

The plaintiff failed to attend the first day of a scheduled 10-day jury trial for a motor vehicle accident claim.

The plaintiff, who had previously been found to be a vexatious litigant, had also failed to attend recent pre-trial conferences and failed to produce required medical and financial evidence.

The court dismissed the action due to the plaintiff's non-attendance and lack of evidence, and awarded the defendant substantial indemnity costs of $100,000.

The defendant brought a motion under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to restrict the self-represented plaintiff from initiating or pursuing further interlocutory proceedings in a motor vehicle accident action commenced in 2012.

The court found the plaintiff had engaged in vexatious conduct through persistent unsuccessful appeals of interlocutory orders concerning irrelevant demands for an interpreter's personal information, blind-copying numerous unrelated persons on litigation correspondence, and flooding defence counsel's inbox with repetitive emails.

The motion was granted, ordering that the plaintiff shall not institute any new motions or appeals in the action except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court.

No costs were ordered given the plaintiff's receipt of social assistance.

The self-represented appellant appealed an associate judge's interlocutory order that restored his motor vehicle accident action to the trial list and dismissed his motion for disclosure of a defence interpreter's emergency contact information.

The court reconstituted itself as a sitting of the Superior Court of Justice to cure a jurisdictional defect.

The court found no error in the motion judge's refusal to order disclosure from a non-party or in the decision to restore the administratively dismissed action to the trial list.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent on a near substantial indemnity basis due to the appellant's unfounded allegations of fraud and perjury against the motion judge and opposing counsel.

Following a 13-day jury trial where the plaintiffs' motor vehicle accident claim was dismissed based on the defence of inevitable accident, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $140,109.10.

The plaintiffs argued the amount was unreasonably high and proposed $100,000.

The court found the defendant's claimed disbursements and fees to be fair and reasonable, noting the complexity of the medical evidence and the plaintiffs' own incurred costs.

The court awarded the defendant costs in the full amount claimed.

The plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident action brought a motion to exclude surveillance evidence, strike the jury notice due to pandemic delays, and require a jury instruction on the statutory deductible.

The court excluded surveillance footage taken on the plaintiff's wedding day, finding its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value, but allowed other footage taken from private parking lots.

The court conditionally struck the jury notice to ensure the trial proceeds on its fixed date even if a jury is unavailable.

The request for a jury instruction on the statutory deductible was dismissed, as the jury's role is to assess damages without regard to the deduction.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of the lower court dated February 12, 2021.

The Divisional Court reviewed the written materials submitted by the parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding party in the all-inclusive amount of $3,646.63.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's jury notice in a motor vehicle accident action due to the suspension of civil jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the anticipated lengthy delay in scheduling a jury trial would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiff, including financial hardship and the cost of updating expert reports.

The court provisionally struck the jury notice, ordering that it be automatically reinstated if juries are being empanelled when the matter is called to trial.

The respondent moved to quash the appellant's appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of Justice, arguing lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant had previously refused to attend a defence medical examination, leading to a Superior Court order dismissing his appeal from a Master's order and requiring his attendance.

The Court of Appeal found that Justice O'Brien's order was interlocutory, meaning the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The motion to quash was granted, without prejudice to the appellant seeking an extension of time and leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

This endorsement addresses costs thrown away following the adjournment of a trial due to the plaintiff's unforeseen hospitalization for mental health reasons.

The court found the plaintiff's inability to attend was unforeseen and unforeseeable, and it was the first adjournment in the matter.

Submissions were made regarding costs thrown away, but the court decided to leave the determination of costs to the presiding judge at the eventual trial.

Following a two-week jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision, the jury awarded the plaintiff $15,000 in general damages for a minor soft tissue strain.

The trial judge was required to determine whether the plaintiff met the statutory threshold under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court found that while the plaintiff suffered a permanent impairment from a soft tissue injury to his left shoulder, the impairment was neither 'serious' nor 'important' as it did not substantially interfere with his employment or usual activities of daily living.

The plaintiff's claim for general damages was therefore dismissed.

Following a jury trial in a motor vehicle negligence action where liability was admitted but the jury found the accident caused no injuries, the defendant sought costs after the plaintiff’s action was dismissed.

The court considered the discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the effect of Rule 49 offers to settle.

The court held that Rule 49.10 did not apply because the plaintiff obtained no judgment.

Applying the principle that costs generally follow the event, the court concluded there was no misconduct justifying departure from that principle, though the plaintiff’s financial circumstances were considered in assessing quantum.

The defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs and reduced disbursements in an amount the court considered fair and reasonable.

The defendant moved for an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a neuropsychological defence medical examination in a motor vehicle accident action.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant required leave under Rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure because the matter had already been certified for trial.

The court granted leave, finding that defence counsel’s mistaken understanding regarding the plaintiff’s willingness to attend the examination constituted a substantial or unexpected change in circumstances.

Applying the principles governing additional defence medical examinations, the court held that the examination was necessary to allow the defence physiatrist to finalize his opinion regarding the cause of the plaintiff’s cognitive impairments, particularly in light of a prior head injury and the plaintiff’s expert report.

The motion was granted and the plaintiff was ordered to attend the examination.

The appellant insured appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claim for property damage caused by mould on the basis that it was barred by a one-year limitation period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding genuine issues for trial regarding whether the former six-year limitation period applied, when the extent of the mould was discovered, and whether the appellant was bound by the one-year limitation period in the insurance policy given her assertion that she never received it.