Avril Ping-Wah Allen

The infant plaintiff suffered significant injuries after falling from a balcony.

The plaintiffs moved to extend the time to set the action down for trial, and the defendant cross-moved to bifurcate the trial on liability and damages.

The Master granted the bifurcation over the plaintiffs' objections, which was upheld by the Superior Court and Divisional Court on the basis that the court retained inherent jurisdiction to bifurcate non-jury trials without consent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs' appeal, holding that Rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure clearly requires the consent of the parties to bifurcate any proceeding, whether jury or non-jury, thereby ousting the court's inherent jurisdiction to do so without consent.

The plaintiff successfully defended two summary judgment motions brought by the defendants, The City of Mississauga and Peel Condominium Corporation #89.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued against the costs, citing a last-minute change in the plaintiff's discovery evidence and excessive hours billed by plaintiff's counsel.

The court found the plaintiff fully successful and entitled to costs, dismissing the defendants' arguments regarding the plaintiff's testimony.

While acknowledging the complexity, the court found the total hours billed by two counsel to be excessive.

The court fixed costs at $8,000 all-inclusive against each defendant, applying Rule 57.01(1) and principles of fairness and reasonableness in costs awards.

The defendants, the City of Mississauga and Peel Condominium Corporation #89 (PCC89), brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for injuries sustained in a trip and fall on a municipal boulevard.

The City argued the boulevard was in reasonable repair or that it lacked knowledge of the non-repair and took reasonable steps.

PCC89 argued it was not an occupier of the municipal property and had no liability.

The plaintiff contended both defendants owed a duty of care and that genuine issues for trial existed regarding the hole's size, the defendants' occupier status, and the reasonableness of their inspection policies.

The court dismissed both summary judgment motions, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, including the actual size of the hole, the extent of PCC89's maintenance and control over the boulevard, and the reasonableness of the City's inspection policy.

The plaintiff was severely injured in a head-on collision after losing control of her vehicle on a snow-covered and slippery municipal road.

The plaintiffs sued the municipality for negligence in its winter road maintenance.

The court found that the road was in a state of non-repair due to a 'refreeze' of brine, which caused the accident.

The municipality failed to meet its own maintenance quality standards by leaving the road untreated for over three hours during a winter storm.

The court held the municipality liable for the agreed damages of $12 million and found no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action for damages against the respondent municipality.

The appellant and a friend had driven down a dead-end rural road, got stuck on a hydro right-of-way, and abandoned their vehicle in extreme cold, resulting in severe frostbite injuries.

The appellants argued the municipality breached its standard of care by failing to post 'No Exit' and checkerboard signs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the road conditions were not potentially dangerous to reasonable drivers and that the appellants would have ignored the signs regardless.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them negligent for failing to provide a required railing, which was determined to be a proximate cause of the respondent's accident.

The trial judge also allocated 33.3% contributory negligence to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's conclusions on causation and contributory negligence were fully supported by the evidence and within his discretion.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment, arguing the trial judge erred in her factual findings and misdirected herself on the legal principles regarding confidential information by focusing on ownership.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual and credibility findings.

The Court also held that the lack of proof of ownership of the confidential information was highly relevant, as there was no evidence the appellants had the legal right to compel its return or were authorized agents of the owner.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's findings of fact, specifically the finding that he refused to leave a pizza shop.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was ample evidence to support the trial judge's findings and no palpable and overriding error was demonstrated.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the trial judge, arguing that the trial judge erred in finding a failure to establish causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact and agreeing that the appellant failed to establish the necessary element of causation.

The plaintiff fell on a municipal sidewalk and served notice of her claim on the City ten days later.

The City moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the seven-day notice requirement under s. 284(5) of the Municipal Act.

The motions judge dismissed the motion, applying Rule 3.01(1)(b) to exclude holidays from the computation of time.

The Court of Appeal allowed the City's appeal, holding that the Interpretation Act, not the Rules of Civil Procedure, governs statutory time limits.

Under s. 28(h) of the Interpretation Act, holidays are not excluded from the calculation unless the final day falls on a holiday.

As the seventh day was not a holiday, the notice was out of time and the action was dismissed.