Bernard T. Verbanac

A class member brought an unopposed motion to extend the opt-out period in a certified class action regarding the alleged use of surveillance cameras at a medical clinic.

The class member had always intended to pursue an individual action and had commenced one prior to the certification of the class proceeding, but failed to submit an opt-out form by the deadline.

The court granted the motion, noting its jurisdiction to extend the time for opting out to preserve the legal rights of those wishing to exercise them outside the class action.

The plaintiff was injured after falling or jumping from the roof of a commercial building owned and occupied by the defendants.

The plaintiff and the individual defendant had gone to the roof to smoke, but the door locked behind them, leaving them stranded.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing the plaintiff was solely responsible for her injuries by venturing away from the door.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a trier of fact could conclude the defendants breached their duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act and that such breach was a proximate cause of the injuries, thus presenting a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The appellant alleged she was sexually assaulted by a taxi driver employed by the respondent taxi company.

She sued the taxi company on grounds of vicarious liability, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing all claims against the taxi company.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the dismissal of her vicarious liability claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the alleged sexual assault was only coincidentally linked to the taxi company's activities as a taxi dispatching business and did not meet the test for vicarious liability established in Bazley v. Curry.

The plaintiff, T.I., brought an action against Velibor Boro Lakovic and United Taxi Limited for damages arising from an alleged sexual assault by Lakovic, a taxi driver.

United Taxi brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against it, arguing no genuine issue for trial regarding direct negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, or vicarious liability.

T.I. brought a cross-motion for leave to amend her Statement of Claim to add Dusan Tosic, the owner of the taxi, as a defendant.

The court granted United Taxi's motion for summary judgment, finding no basis for liability against it, particularly regarding vicarious liability as the alleged assault was a random act not strongly connected to United Taxi's enterprise.

The court also granted T.I.'s motion to add Dusan Tosic as a defendant, finding the proposed claims tenable and not an abuse of process.

Following Suncor's successful motion for summary judgment dismissing the action against it, the parties made written submissions on costs.

Suncor sought substantial indemnity costs and argued the plaintiff's counsel should be personally liable for costs under Rule 57.07(1).

The plaintiff argued no costs should be awarded or that enforcement should be stayed pending trial against the remaining defendants to allow for a potential Sanderson order.

The court awarded Suncor partial indemnity costs of $34,877.53, finding no basis for substantial indemnity costs or personal costs against counsel.

The court also denied the stay, concluding there was no reasonable prospect of a Sanderson order being granted.

The plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including Suncor Energy Inc., for damages arising from an assault by a gas station employee.

Suncor brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim against it, arguing it was not vicariously liable for the employee of its licensee, Takbro Enterprises Limited.

The court applied the principles of vicarious liability, particularly from Bazley v. Curry, finding that the employee's wrongful acts were only coincidentally linked to Suncor's activities as a licensor.

The court determined there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding Suncor's vicarious liability and granted Suncor's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the action against it.

Following a motion in which the plaintiff unsuccessfully sought to add a non-party individual as a defendant and obtain immediate judgment against him, the court determined the appropriate costs disposition.

The non-party sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the motion was ill-conceived and lacked a pleaded claim.

The court held that although the motion lacked merit, the circumstances did not justify substantial indemnity costs.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the non-party, payable by the plaintiff, while the plaintiff was separately awarded substantial indemnity costs against the corporate defendant after succeeding on a summary judgment motion following the defendant being noted in default.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs order denying him costs after he was awarded $12,000 in a wrongful dismissal trial.

The trial judge had denied costs under Rule 57.05(1) because the recovery was within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, which had increased to $25,000 after the action was commenced.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's exercise of discretion, noting the moving party's continuing obligation to assess the appropriate forum and the undue length of the trial caused by the unsuccessful pursuit of punitive damages.

Following a wrongful dismissal action in which the plaintiff recovered $12,514, the plaintiff sought costs exceeding $21,000.

The amount awarded fell well within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

The court considered Rule 57.05(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits a denial of costs where a plaintiff recovers an amount within the Small Claims Court jurisdiction.

The court held that the policy underlying the rule applied even though the action was commenced before the jurisdictional limit increased.

As the claim clearly could have been pursued in Small Claims Court and no exceptional circumstances justified Superior Court proceedings, the court declined to award costs.

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause following a workplace altercation where he struck a co-worker.

The court applied a contextual approach and found the single incident of misconduct, which involved provocation and no prior disciplinary record, did not constitute just cause for dismissal.

The court also held that an employment contract limiting notice to statutory minimums was unenforceable for lack of consideration, as it was signed after the plaintiff had already commenced employment.

The plaintiff was awarded 4.5 months' pay in lieu of notice, totaling $12,514.00.