Alexandra Vaiay

The moving party requested reconsideration of the court's order dismissing her motion for leave to appeal from a Divisional Court order.

The underlying claim involved a fall allegedly caused by a negligent transit driver, which was dismissed after trial.

The moving party argued that fresh evidence supported her appeal and alleged that the jury foreman was biased because he had previously testified for the transit commission.

The Court of Appeal found that the fresh evidence had already been addressed by the Divisional Court and that the jury bias allegation lacked evidentiary support.

Finding no exceptional circumstances under Rule 59.06(2), the court dismissed the motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking disclosure of surveillance particulars from the defendant (TTC) before her examination for discovery.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to compel the plaintiff's attendance at examination for discovery.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendant's motion, holding that the defendant, having served its affidavit of documents and notice of examination first, was entitled to examine the plaintiff first.

The defendant was not required to disclose surveillance particulars until its own representatives' examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff sued the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) for negligence after falling on a bus with a wet floor.

The court examined the bus driver's standard of care, considering the TTC's operator manual and the prevailing weather conditions.

The court found that the driver operated the bus reasonably and prudently, and the plaintiff's fall was not reasonably foreseeable.

Consequently, the action for negligence was dismissed.

The court also made hypothetical findings on causation and contributory negligence, determining that if negligence had been found, the plaintiff would have been 75% contributorily negligent.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a 2002 dismissal order for non-appearance and to reinstate the action.

Several defendants requested an adjournment to retrieve their files, which the plaintiff opposed.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, noting that the plaintiff failed to serve all relevant defendants, did not include the dismissal order in the motion materials, and provided little evidence explaining the delay since a vexatious litigant order against him was rescinded in 2010.