Allan Cocunato

The appellant appealed a jury verdict from a motor vehicle accident trial where the jury found she suffered injuries but not a loss of competitive advantage.

The appellant argued the jury's answers were irreconcilable and unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the jury's verdict, finding it was supported by evidence and met the high standard of appellate review for jury findings.

The defendant City of Toronto brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's slip and fall action for delay under Rule 24.01(1)(b) and (c).

The plaintiff conceded the delay was inordinate but argued it was excusable due to lawyer inadvertence and a lawyer winding down their practice.

The court found the delay excusable, noting the plaintiff's consistent intent to proceed and that no delay was her fault.

The court also found no actual prejudice to the City, despite some employees having retired, as there was no evidence they could not be located or provide evidence.

The motion to dismiss was dismissed, and the action was ordered to be set down for trial by October 1, 2025, with no costs awarded.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments following the death of his step-son in a motorcycle accident.

The respondent insurer raised two preliminary issues: whether a step-parent qualifies as an 'insured person' under the Schedule, and whether the applicant was barred from claiming benefits under s. 61 because he was receiving Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA) benefits for PTSD related to his work as a paramedic.

The Tribunal applied a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, finding that the undefined term 'child' in the Schedule includes a step-child, making the applicant an insured person.

The Tribunal also found the applicant was not barred by s. 61, as the basis for his WSIA claim (work-related trauma) differed from his accident benefits claim (psychological injuries from the step-son's death).

The matter was ordered to proceed to a substantive hearing.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to replace a 'Jane/John Doe' defendant with a named individual, Hadi Bahiraei, in an action concerning a fatal drug overdose at a mental health facility.

The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing there was an unexplained and inordinate delay of over two years in bringing the motion after the plaintiff learned the individual's identity.

The court granted the motion, finding that while the delay was significant and poorly explained, the amendment would not cause non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $1,500 in costs thrown away.

The plaintiff, Laelana Ali, sought damages for loss of competitive advantage (LOCA) following a bicycle-car collision where liability was admitted.

The defendants brought a non-suit motion and argued that the LOCA claim should not be put to the jury due to insufficient medical evidence.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that despite thin evidence, there was enough for the jury to judicially consider the LOCA claim, as such claims are less amenable to precise calculations and do not strictly require expert medical evidence if corroborated by other testimony.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent agreed the applicant qualified for IRB but disputed the quantum.

The applicant, who was self-employed, argued his IRB should be calculated based on his earnings in the 52 weeks prior to the accident.

The Tribunal found that under section 4(3) of the Schedule, a self-employed person's IRB must be calculated based on their income from the last completed taxation year.

Since the applicant declared no self-employment income in 2016, the last completed taxation year before the 2017 accident, his IRB entitlement was calculated at nil.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant solicitors represented the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident trial.

Although the jury awarded damages, the trial judge's costs award resulted in a net judgment requiring the plaintiff to pay the defendants.

The solicitors sought a charging order under s. 34(1) of the Solicitors Act on the damages awarded before set-off.

The motion judge dismissed the request, finding no property was recovered.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that mutual debt obligations in a judgment are set-off, and since the plaintiff emerged as a net debtor, no property was recovered through the solicitors' instrumentality.