Andy Clifford Jairam

A snow removal contractor brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury slip-and-fall claim and related cross-claims.

The plaintiff filed no responding evidence and did not appear on the motion.

The court held that the absence of any admissible evidence regarding the fall, injuries, or sidewalk condition meant there was no genuine issue requiring a trial as against the contractor, and the claim against it was dismissed.

However, the municipality’s cross-claim for contribution and indemnity raised unresolved factual issues, including the interpretation of meteorological evidence and whether contractual snow-removal obligations were met.

Those issues required expert evidence and were determined to be genuine issues for trial.

Following an unsuccessful summary judgment motion brought by a third party in a slip-and-fall action, the court determined the appropriate costs award payable to the defendant municipality.

The motion had concerned contractual interpretation, contribution and indemnity between a municipality and its snow removal contractor, and the applicable negligence standard.

The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate due to the absence of the plaintiff’s evidence and the need to determine fault at trial.

Applying section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed what was fair and reasonable in light of the parties’ competing cost submissions.

Costs were fixed at a midpoint between the amounts proposed by the parties.

A snow removal contractor brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a third party claim brought by a municipality in a slip-and-fall action.

The municipality alleged the contractor was responsible for contribution and indemnity if the plaintiff established negligence regarding icy sidewalk conditions.

The court held that determining whether negligent snow and ice removal caused the injury required evidence from the plaintiff and could not be decided in the contractor’s summary judgment motion.

Because third party liability could depend on findings made at trial in the main action, a genuine issue requiring a trial remained.

The motion for summary judgment was therefore dismissed.

Multiple defendants brought motions seeking the appointment of a litigation guardian for a self‑represented plaintiff pursuing four personal injury actions.

The court considered medical evidence from a psychiatrist assessing the plaintiff’s mental capacity under s. 6 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 and Rules 7.01 and 7.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The expert concluded that the plaintiff suffered from a delusional disorder and was unable to understand information relevant to litigation decisions or appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of those decisions.

The court found the plaintiff’s expectations of recovering approximately $26.9 million in damages to be grossly unrealistic and indicative of an inability to make rational litigation decisions.

On a balance of probabilities, the court determined the plaintiff was mentally incapable in respect of the litigation and required a litigation guardian.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a negligence action regarding the sale of a vehicle that had previously been in an accident.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error by the trial judge.

The court noted there was no evidence of negligence, as the respondent was unaware of the vehicle's accident history, and the case was pleaded solely in negligence rather than breach of contract.