Andrea Trozzo

The plaintiff was injured when struck in the eye by a baseball during an adult recreational slow-pitch league game.

He sued the municipality, the league, and the player who threw the ball, alleging the municipality failed to properly align the field lights, causing him to lose sight of the ball.

The court found that while the liability waiver signed by the plaintiff did not apply because it was restricted to tournaments rather than league play, the municipality did not breach its duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The court held that the municipality acted reasonably in releasing the field for play given the practical difficulties of adjusting lights in early spring.

Furthermore, the court concluded that the plaintiff, an experienced player, voluntarily assumed the physical and legal risks of playing baseball under the lights, providing a complete defence to the claims.

The plaintiff, Blackstone Paving and Construction Limited, sought a stay of the defendant Town of Newmarket’s counterclaim, arguing that the Town’s failure to immediately disclose a settlement agreement with third party R.V. Anderson Associates Limited constituted an abuse of process.

The court found that the settlement did not materially change the litigation landscape or the adversarial relationship among the parties, and thus did not trigger an immediate disclosure obligation.

The application was dismissed, with costs reserved to the outcome of trial.

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.