Alexandra Victoros

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he was not involved in an 'accident' when he slipped on ice while putting air in his vehicle's tires.

He argued the adjudicator erred in law by failing to properly consider his case law regarding the ordinary use or operation of a vehicle.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law.

The adjudicator had properly applied the causation test, concluding that the ice was the dominant feature of the fall, which created an intervening event that broke the chain of causation.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on ice while inflating his vehicle's tires at a gas station.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the purpose and causation test, finding that while the purpose test was met, the causation test was not.

The Tribunal concluded that the ice was an intervening act and the dominant feature of the fall, breaking the chain of causation.

As the incident was not an accident, the application for benefits was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought an action under Simplified Procedure for damages sustained from a trip and fall on a city-owned sidewalk, alleging non-repair.

The parties agreed on damages, and the trial proceeded solely on liability.

The court found that the sidewalk's discontinuity, measured between 17.462 mm and 18.5 mm, did not exceed the 20 mm threshold set by the Minimum Maintenance Standards (O.Reg. 239/02), and thus was deemed to be in a state of repair.

Consequently, the plaintiff failed to prove non-repair, and the action was dismissed.

Despite the dismissal, the court also found the plaintiff 20% contributorily negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout on a familiar sidewalk.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on an icy driveway while walking around her parked vehicle to help her child exit.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the incident met the purpose test, it failed the causation test.

The use or operation of the automobile was not the direct cause of the applicant's injuries; rather, the ice on the driveway was an intervening act and the dominant feature that caused the slip and fall.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff moved for leave to amend her Statement of Claim to add the Crown and a road maintenance contractor as defendants after the presumptive expiry of the two-year limitation period.

The proposed defendants opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of discoverability.

The court found that the plaintiff had knowledge of the icy road conditions from the motor vehicle accident report and her own application for statutory accident benefits, but failed to show due diligence in investigating the potential liability of the road maintenance authorities within the limitation period.

The motion to amend the Statement of Claim was dismissed.

The plaintiff sued the defendant municipality after slipping and falling on an icy city sidewalk.

The city had no policy to call in maintenance operators before their regular 7:00 a.m. start time to address icy conditions caused by overnight thaw-freeze cycles, despite having a policy to do so for 8 cm of snow.

The court found the city's policy unreasonable and held the city grossly negligent under the Municipal Act, 2001.

However, the plaintiff was found 50% contributorily negligent for wearing running shoes instead of winter boots and failing to walk around the visible ice.