Bradley J. Zochodne

A personal injury action arising from a fall sustained by the plaintiff while hunting in a deer blind on the defendants' rural property.

The plaintiff initially pleaded that the defendant Todd Drain was an occupier under the Occupiers' Liability Act but withdrew this allegation on the first day of trial.

The court determined that the withdrawal of the occupier allegation eliminated most claims against Todd Drain, leaving only a claim based on alleged misfeasance—specifically, that Todd Drain removed an artificial turf carpet from the deer blind floor, causing it to become wet and slippery.

The jury found that the artificial turf was present on the date of the accident, thereby dismissing the action against Todd Drain.

The decision addresses the interplay between the Occupiers' Liability Act and common law negligence, the proper formulation of jury questions, and the consequences of withdrawing pleadings mid-trial.

The applicants brought an application seeking a declaration of a 25% equitable ownership interest in a property based on an alleged oral agreement.

The respondents denied the agreement.

At the hearing, the parties jointly requested an adjournment to conduct cross-examinations on affidavits.

The court questioned whether the matter should proceed by application given the fundamental factual dispute, but allowed it to continue as an application on consent, noting it is functionally similar to a summary judgment motion and the hearing judge will ultimately determine if the record is sufficient to resolve the dispute.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order and to lift the automatic stay.

The tenants had ceased paying rent and vacated the property, but refused to return the keys.

The Board ordered eviction and payment of arrears.

The tenants appealed, alleging denial of procedural fairness and errors in applying the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court found the appeal raised no questions of law, was manifestly devoid of merit, and constituted an abuse of process intended solely for delay.

The motion was granted, the appeal quashed, and the stay lifted.