Bahareh Kazemi

The plaintiff Najla Rahimi moved for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim brought against her by the defendants.

The case involves a rear-end motor vehicle collision where the defendant Mojtaba Hatami, driving a leased car, rear-ended the plaintiffs' car.

The defendants claimed Najla Rahimi was contributorily negligent for stopping suddenly.

The court found no evidence of negligence by Najla Rahimi and held the defendant 100% liable for the collision.

The counterclaim was dismissed, and liability in the main action was resolved in favour of the plaintiffs, leaving only damages for trial.

On a summary judgment motion by the plaintiff driver, the court dismissed a counterclaim seeking contribution and indemnity arising from a rear-end collision.

Applying the Hryniak framework and the best foot forward principle, the court held the evidentiary record was sufficient to decide liability without a trial.

The defendant driver failed to rebut the presumption of negligence applicable in rear-end collisions, and there was no admissible evidence giving an air of reality to any allegation of contributory negligence by the plaintiff driver.

The ruling necessarily resolved liability in the main action, leaving only the assessment of damages for trial, while costs of the counterclaim were reserved.

The owner of a motor vehicle brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims arising from a motor vehicle accident caused by the owner’s minor son.

The owner argued that he did not provide express or implied consent for his unlicensed son to operate the vehicle, relying on s.192 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The court applied the summary judgment framework from Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch and considered whether implied consent could be determined on the evidentiary record.

Finding the son knew he lacked permission, had never previously driven the vehicle, and had taken the keys without authorization, the court concluded there was no express or implied consent.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the claim against the vehicle owner.

The co-defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The plaintiff alleged negligence by the drivers of two vehicles ahead of him, asserting that their actions in slowing and stopping after police intervention caused the collision.

The court reviewed police reports, discovery transcripts, and documentary evidence and held that the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of negligence that applies to a driver who rear-ends another vehicle.

The evidence established that the plaintiff was following too closely and failed to maintain proper vigilance and control.

The court concluded that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims and cross-claims.