Monthly Archives: January 2010

Lump Sum Offer to Multiple Plaintiffs Held Not to Qualify Under Rule 49

Madam Justice Jane Ferguson has released a decision that will be of interest to civil litigation practitioners. Her reasons in Hayden v. Stevenson deal with a defendant’s offer to settle in a motor vehicle case, but the principles that she discusses … Continue reading

Posted in Costs | Leave a comment

Costs Premiums Back from the Dead

Addendum: Since our commentary on this case, Justice Gonsolus has released supplementary reasons on the issue of the costs premium. His Honour did not disturb the premium of $12,358 that he originally awarded. Instead, he revised the basis of the premium. His … Continue reading

Posted in Costs | Leave a comment

Master MacLeod Says “Litigation Finger” Can Point at Two Parties Simultaneously

In Suarez v. Minto Developments Inc., Master Calum MacLeod addressed a couple of interesting issues in the law of misnomer. (This principle has received increased attention over the last couple of years, perhaps because the disappearance of “special circumstances” as … Continue reading

Posted in Limitation Periods | Leave a comment

Sidewalk Height Discrepancy of 3/4″ Found Not to be Unreasonable

In Furlong v. Cambridge (City), Mr. Justice M. Dale Parayeski dismissed the plaintiff’s action arising out of having tripped on a sidewalk owned by the defendant municipality. The plaintiff and her husband were walking to their daughter’s home. The plaintiff … Continue reading

Posted in Municipalities | Leave a comment

No “Semblance of Relevance” to Information about Insurer’s Claims Reserve

Lin v. Belair Insurance Company Inc. was an action for accident benefits consequent upon a serious motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff sought to compel production of some internal emails of the insurer, dealing with the setting of reserves for the claim. … Continue reading

Posted in Discovery, Insurance News | Leave a comment

New Rules Apply to Summary Judgment Motion Served in 2009 but Heard in 2010

This law will probably have a short shelf life, but it is topical right now. In Onex Corporation v. American Home Assurance, Justice Edward Belobaba has held that a motion for summary judgment that was served in 2009 but to … Continue reading

Posted in Practice and Procedure | Leave a comment

Court Finds Duty to Defend Action Based on Negligent Misrepresentation by Vendor of Home

UPDATE The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from this decision on October 6, 2010, in very brief reasons: “It is uncontested that the appellant insurer has the onus to show that the exclusion is clearly and unambiguously operative. It … Continue reading

Posted in Duty to Defend | 2 Comments