Andrew Davidson

The plaintiff, an elderly passenger using a walker, brought a negligence action against the transit commission and its bus driver after she fell while exiting a bus.

She alleged the driver breached the standard of care by failing to deploy a ramp or move the bus closer to the curb.

The court reviewed video evidence and testimony, finding that the driver had stopped a normal distance from the curb and kneeled the bus according to standard practice.

The court concluded the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence, and the action was dismissed.

The defendant Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) brought a motion to transfer a personal injury action from the Central South Region (Hamilton) to the Toronto Region, pursuant to Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the TTC failed to establish that the proposed Toronto venue was "significantly better" than the plaintiff's chosen Hamilton venue, or that the transfer was desirable in the interest of justice, especially given the late stage of the proceedings and potential prejudice to the plaintiff.

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 defendant Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) brought a motion to transfer the action from the Central West Region (Brampton) to the Toronto Region.

The plaintiff, Magdalene Coppin, opposed the transfer.

The court, applying Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found that the incident occurred in Toronto, the plaintiff resided and received treatment in Toronto, and examinations for discovery took place in Toronto.

The only connection to Brampton was the location of the plaintiff's counsel.

The court determined that the TTC met its onus to demonstrate that the interests of justice required the transfer to Toronto, considering a holistic application of the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b).

Following a jury trial where the defendant TTC was entirely successful, the TTC sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The self-represented plaintiff opposed the costs request, arguing that the TTC's in-house counsel did not keep time dockets and that she was impecunious.

The court held that time estimates were acceptable for in-house counsel and that the plaintiff provided no evidence to support her claim of impecuniosity.

The court awarded the TTC costs fixed at $34,383.40.

Corrigendum to a prior costs endorsement correcting arithmetic errors in the calculation of a costs award in a civil action.

The court adjusted the surveillance expense total and corrected the amount previously recorded in the endorsement.

The court also deducted a previously satisfied $1,000 costs order made by a Master.

As a result of these corrections, the supplementary costs endorsement amount was reduced.

Supplementary costs endorsement correcting disbursement and total costs figures in a prior costs decision.

The defendant advised that an expert invoice previously referenced should be replaced with a lower amount.

The court amended the disbursement total and the overall costs award accordingly to reflect the corrected invoice amount.

The decision adjusts the numerical totals in the earlier July 15, 2014 costs endorsement without altering the underlying entitlement to costs.

The defendant was charged with dangerous driving and assault with a weapon (a motor vehicle) arising from an incident on December 15, 2010, in a Thornhill community centre parking lot.

During a physical altercation between two groups of youth, the defendant drove his red Mazda in a circular pattern toward the area where the fighting was occurring, allegedly to scare the combatants away from his employee who was being attacked.

While eyewitness accounts were inconsistent regarding whether the vehicle actually struck anyone, the court found the defendant guilty of dangerous driving based on his deliberate decision to drive toward the group despite having a direct exit available.

The court also found him guilty of assault with a weapon, as the defendant used his vehicle as a weapon by threatening force through his driving conduct.

One charge was stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.