B. Leanne Rapley

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages following a trip and fall incident involving an elevator mislevelling at a condominium.

The defendants, including the condominium corporation, property manager, elevator maintenance company (thyssenkrupp), and security company, each brought motions for summary judgment, arguing there were no genuine issues for trial.

The court examined the defendants' compliance with their duties under the Occupiers Liability Act, relevant regulations, and maintenance contracts, particularly concerning elevator safety and maintenance.

The court found that the defendants had reasonable systems in place, complied with the CSA B44 Code and other legislation, and that the plaintiffs failed to establish a causal link between any alleged negligence and the injuries.

All summary judgment motions were granted, dismissing the plaintiffs' action.

The defendants brought a motion asserting that the plaintiff’s motor vehicle accident claim was statute-barred under the two‑year limitation period tied to the discoverability of a threshold injury under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court considered whether it was discoverable before January 23, 2010 that the plaintiff had sustained a permanent and serious impairment meeting the statutory threshold following a 2008 accident.

Although the plaintiff had suffered significant symptoms and had consulted numerous medical professionals, the medical evidence did not clearly establish permanence or seriousness prior to that date.

The court held that the available medical reports created a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding discoverability and the limitation defence.

The defendants’ motion was therefore dismissed, leaving the limitation and threshold issues to be determined at trial.

The moving defendants brought a Rule 22 motion seeking determination of whether Ontario or Alberta law governed the plaintiff’s contractual and tort claims arising from a fire allegedly caused by a defective fryer and oven system supplied to an Alberta poultry processing plant.

The parties agreed that if Alberta law governed the tort claims, the claims would be statute‑barred under Alberta’s ultimate limitation period.

Applying the lex loci delicti rule from Tolofson v. Jensen, the court held that Alberta law governed the tort claims because the damage occurred in Alberta, and therefore those claims were dismissed as statute‑barred.

However, applying the “closest and most real connection” test for contractual choice of law, the court found the contract was most closely connected to Ontario, where the system was designed and supplied.

Ontario law therefore governed the contractual claims.