Bradley M. Remigis

A self-represented plaintiff sought damages after municipal enforcement of a property standards order led to demolition of structures and removal of numerous items characterized as refuse and debris.

The court held the Building Code Act order was valid and binding after committee review and non-compliance, and found the municipality had statutory authority to enter and enforce it.

The court found the municipality acted in good faith and with reasonable care, owed no duty to provide a detailed inventory-style accounting of removed refuse, and incurred no civil liability.

Claims against the police services board for failing to intervene or lay charges were also rejected.

The action was dismissed, and the court further held that damages were not proven in any event.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff’s slip-and-fall action for failure to provide notice within ten days as required by the Municipal Act, 2001.

The plaintiff argued for an exception based on reasonable excuse and lack of prejudice to the municipality.

The court found that the plaintiff could rely on a late-served expert report for the motion, but that the admissibility of both parties’ expert evidence was not established.

The court concluded that the conflicting expert evidence on the plaintiff’s capacity and reasonable excuse created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

Both the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff’s request for reverse summary judgment were dismissed.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

The defendant MPW Industrial Services Inc. brought a motion to dismiss or stay a personal injury action, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and was not a convenient forum.

The plaintiff, a truck driver, was injured in Ohio when cargo negligently loaded in Ontario dislodged.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction based on a real and substantial connection, as two other defendants were domiciled in Ontario and the alleged tortious acts (negligent loading) occurred in Ontario.

The court also determined that Ohio was not clearly a more appropriate forum, considering factors such as comparative convenience, applicable law, multiplicity of proceedings, enforcement, and fairness and efficiency.

The motion was dismissed.

This decision addresses a motion by non-settling defendants (Watts Water Technologies) to expand a Pierringer Agreement order.

The non-settling defendants sought to include provisions allowing them to use discovery transcripts of settling defendants at trial, serve requests to admit, and compel testimony from settling defendant representatives.

The court denied these requests, finding them premature and matters best left to the trial judge's discretion.

The court emphasized that a model order for class actions should be tailored to specific circumstances and not automatically applied to non-class actions.

The appellant was jogging on an indoor track at McMaster University when struck from behind by a member of the Flying Angels Running Club, suffering a serious shoulder injury requiring surgery.

At trial, no negligence was found against McMaster University or the runner who struck the appellant.

However, the Flying Angels Running Club and its coach were found negligent.

The jury determined the appellant was 40 percent contributorily negligent for failing to move to a different lane when asked to do so.

The appellant received approximately $80,000 net in damages including prejudgment interest.

On appeal, the appellant challenged four evidentiary rulings by the trial judge: the characterization of lane one as the "default lane" in the jury charge, the exclusion of an email from a track employee, the exclusion of a letter to the Ontario Ministry of Labour, and the exclusion of insurance reimbursement charts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings and jury instructions.

The respondents brought motions for an order requiring the appellant to post security for costs on appeal.

The appellant was injured while running on an indoor track at McMaster University and sued for negligence and breach of statutory duty.

Following a three-week trial, the jury found the Flying Angels Running Club and George Kerr 60% liable, with the appellant 40% contributorily negligent.

The appellant was awarded damages of $101,885 but was required to pay substantial costs to the defendants.

The motions judge granted the security for costs motions, finding that although the appeal was not frivolous and vexatious, security was warranted under the applicable rules considering the appellant's non-resident status, the weak merits of the appeal, and the appellant's demonstrated financial capacity to post security.

The plaintiffs initiated an action for injuries sustained by Vladislav Bukshtynov at McMaster University's indoor track, claiming $1.1 million in damages.

A jury found the Flying Angels Running Club and George Kerr 60% liable, Vladislav Bukshtynov 40% contributorily negligent, and McMaster University and Hwang Lee not liable.

Damages were assessed at $101,885.

This judgment addresses costs, considering Rule 49 offers and the plaintiff's litigation conduct.

The court denied the plaintiffs' request for a Sanderson order, finding the plaintiff's conduct, particularly the failure to secure ATE insurance and refusal to settle, to be irresponsible.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs up to the date of the defendants' Rule 49 offers, and partial indemnity costs to all defendants from that date until a mid-trial pretrial recommendation, followed by substantial indemnity costs to all defendants thereafter.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay McMaster University $95,000 and the Flying Angels Running Club, George Kerr, and Hwang Lee $69,156.

The defendants Flying Angels Running Club and George Kerr were ordered to pay the plaintiffs $43,108, to be deducted from the amounts owed by the plaintiffs.