Asher G. Honickman

The appellant sued her landlord for negligence after suffering serious personal injuries from a fall on a fire escape, alleging it was not kept free of ice and snow.

The trial judge dismissed the action, accepting the superintendent's evidence of daily inspections and finding no snow or ice was present, while rejecting the appellant's evidence on credibility grounds.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence and erred in credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the record and there was no basis to interfere with the finding that the standard of care was met.

The plaintiff sought damages after a fall from an apartment building fire escape, alleging breach of the Occupiers’ Liability Act and the Fire Code due to accumulated snow and ice.

The court held that fire escapes must be kept safe for emergency use and that the occupier’s duty was not negated merely because tenants used the area for smoking, but found the defendants had a reasonable winter maintenance system in place.

The plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that ice on the fire escape caused the fall, particularly given credibility problems, inconsistent accounts of the accident, and photographic and witness evidence inconsistent with the alleged icy condition.

The action was dismissed.

The court nevertheless assessed hypothetical damages totalling substantial non-pecuniary, loss of competitive advantage, future care, and OHIP subrogated amounts.

During a personal injury trial arising from a fall from an apartment building fire escape, the plaintiff sought to have a neuro‑psychiatrist provide an opinion on the mechanism of the head injury and introduce an animated demonstrative video illustrating a coup‑contrecoup brain injury.

The court ruled that the late‑served expert report failed to comply with Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and would prejudice the defence if admitted during trial.

The court also held that, although the witness was qualified in neuro‑psychiatry, he was not properly qualified to opine on the mechanism of the accident, which was a liability issue better addressed by engineering experts.

The proposed demonstrative video was excluded because it was hypothetical and not grounded in evidence adduced at trial.

The expert was limited to giving evidence within the scope of his earlier reports concerning the plaintiff’s neuro‑psychiatric injuries.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a workplace fall, arguing there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and no evidence of negligence or breach of statutory duty under the Occupiers Liability Act.

The plaintiff, an experienced contractor hired to replace a water tank, fell from structural studs above a suspended ceiling while accessing a water valve located more than ten feet above the floor.

The defendants argued the plaintiff chose an unsafe method of access and could not identify the cause of his fall.

The court held that genuine issues remained for trial, including whether the defendants directed the plaintiff to access the valve in that manner and whether the condition of the premises breached the statutory duty under the Occupiers Liability Act.

Credibility conflicts between the plaintiff and the defendants’ agent and unresolved factual issues made summary judgment inappropriate.

Multiple motions arose from contentious guardianship litigation concerning decision-making for an incapable elderly individual under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The applicants, former co‑guardians of the person, sought reimbursement of substantial legal costs from the guardianship estate for litigation undertaken during disputes over medical treatment and end‑of‑life care.

The respondents opposed the claim and sought their own costs arising from the applicants’ repeated urgent motions and alleged interference with medical decision‑making.

The court found the applicants’ advocacy excessive, confrontational, and largely unsuccessful, providing minimal benefit to the incapable person.

The applicants’ request for indemnification from the estate was dismissed, and they were ordered to indemnify the respondents for significant costs relating to the contentious proceedings.

The self-represented applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a bicycle collision but repeatedly failed to produce required documents or retain counsel.

At the arbitration hearing, the applicant appeared unprepared, prompting the insurer to bring a motion to dismiss the proceeding as vexatious and an abuse of process.

The arbitrator declined to dismiss the proceeding without a hearing, finding that the applicant should have a final opportunity to explain his non-compliance and present his case.

The arbitrator ordered a peremptory hearing date with strict terms for document production, warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal.