William West

The defendant brought three motions regarding trial consolidation, undertakings, refusals, and production from non-parties in two related motor vehicle accident actions.

The court declined to consolidate the actions but ordered them to be tried together.

The court also ordered the plaintiffs to submit to further examination for discovery regarding a post-discovery photograph and deleted social media/website content related to a potential business.

Additionally, the court ordered the production of a property damage file from a prior accident due to overlapping injuries.

Costs of $3,500 per action were awarded to the defendant.

The defendants sought costs following a successful motion for security for costs.

The court had previously ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs and later staged payment of that amount.

On the costs issue, the defendants requested $3,500 based on partial indemnity fees and disbursements, while the plaintiff argued each party should bear their own costs or that only a nominal award should be granted.

The court considered the submissions and the governing principles under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and r. 5.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $2,400 all-inclusive to the defendants.

The insurer brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of an action for indemnity under uninsured and family protection coverage following a motor vehicle accident involving an uninsured driver.

The insurer argued the action was statute‑barred and that the insureds failed to comply with the 30‑day notice requirement under Ontario Regulation 676.

The court held that the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 applied and began when the insured demanded indemnification from the insurer, consistent with appellate authority governing OPCF 44R claims.

The court further found the insureds’ late notice constituted imperfect compliance and granted relief from forfeiture under the Insurance Act and Courts of Justice Act, noting minimal prejudice to the insurer and significant disparity between the breach and the loss of coverage.

The insurer’s summary judgment motion was dismissed.

Following a prior order granting security for costs to certain defendants, the court addressed how the payment should be structured.

The defendants sought payment of the full security amount in a single lump sum within 45 days, while the plaintiff proposed staged payments tied to litigation milestones.

The court accepted the plaintiff’s proposal, finding that staging the payments appropriately balanced protection of the defendants’ anticipated costs with access to justice for the plaintiff.

The order required the security for costs amount to be paid in tranches corresponding to discovery, mediation, and setting the action down for trial.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking security for costs against a non‑resident plaintiff who resided in California in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident in Ontario.

The plaintiff argued that her claim had a strong prospect of success and relied on a litigation risk insurance policy to demonstrate the availability of funds to satisfy a potential costs award.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide affidavit evidence establishing impecuniosity or demonstrating that security would prevent her from pursuing the action.

The court further found that the insurance policy did not constitute a sufficient asset within Ontario accessible to the defendants for enforcement of a costs award.

As the plaintiff failed to discharge her evidentiary burden, the court ordered security for costs.