Zoran Samac

The applicant sought directions in an application to set aside her mother's will for incapacity and undue influence, and to contest a property transfer.

The motion was adjourned on consent, but the applicant's request for specific adjournment terms, including freezing a condominium property, was denied.

The court criticized the applicant's counsel for unilateral scheduling, lack of civility, and overreaching demands, ordering the applicant to pay the respondents' costs thrown away.

The plaintiffs and a successful co-defendant sought costs following a summary judgment motion that determined liability for a chain-reaction motor vehicle accident.

The unsuccessful defendants argued that costs should not be awarded until damages were resolved and disputed the scale of costs.

The court held that liability costs could be fixed immediately and awarded partial indemnity costs to both the plaintiffs and the successful co-defendant, as the parties seeking substantial indemnity costs failed to provide evidence of their formal offers to settle.

In a multi-vehicle “chain reaction” collision case, the plaintiffs and two co‑defendants moved for summary judgment seeking a determination that the rear driver and vehicle owner were solely liable and that the other drivers did not contribute to the accident.

The motion judge considered evidence including a police accident report, transcripts from a related Highway Traffic Act prosecution, and discovery transcripts.

Applying the summary judgment principles articulated in Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court held that the evidentiary record permitted a fair and just determination without a trial.

The court found that the rear driver failed to rebut the presumption of negligence applicable to rear‑end collisions and rejected his inconsistent version of events.

Liability was therefore imposed on the rear driver and the vehicle owner, while the other drivers were found not liable.