Bradley M. Remigis

Following dismissal of the plaintiff's action against a municipality and a police services board, the defendants sought costs.

The defendants' bill of costs totalled $36,963.12 on a partial indemnity basis, but they requested only $5,000 given the plaintiff's difficult financial position and the remote chance of recovering costs.

The court found this request to be a very fair compromise extraordinarily beneficial to the plaintiff and ordered costs of $5,000 all inclusive, payable within 90 days.

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 moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Edwards dated June 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered costs in the amount of $5,000 to be paid to the responding parties within thirty days, to be divided among them as they deem reasonable.

The plaintiff was struck by an unidentified vehicle while cycling and sought coverage under his mother's OPCF-44R family protection endorsement.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff did not reside with his mother at the time of the accident.

The court found that the plaintiff had moved out months prior, was paying rent elsewhere, and only made occasional visits to his mother's home.

The court concluded the plaintiff did not reside with his mother and dismissed the action against the insurer.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for various physiotherapy, chiropractic, and assessment treatment plans.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing in part that one claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period and that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The Tribunal applied section 7 of the LAT Act to extend the limitation period, finding the 19-day delay caused no prejudice.

The Tribunal further found all disputed treatment plans and assessments to be reasonable and necessary, rejecting the respondent's insurer examination report due to the applicant's consistent, documented chronic pain.

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.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and settled his statutory accident benefits claim with the insurer, executing a full and final release.

Subsequently, an arbitration was commenced for an unpaid catastrophic assessment report, which was dismissed due to the prior settlement.

The insurer sought its expenses for the arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the arbitration was driven by the assessment facility, AssessNet Inc., rather than the applicant.

The arbitrator awarded the insurer its expenses in the amount of $13,387.31, and ordered that they be paid by AssessNet Inc. as the party instructing the conduct of the hearing.

Following the dismissal of a Small Claims Court appeal, the successful respondent sought costs for both the trial and the appeal.

The court declined to award trial costs, noting they had already been dealt with by the trial judge.

Finding the respondent's claimed hours for the appeal excessive, the court fixed costs of the appeal at $1,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding her 100 per cent at fault for a parking lot motor vehicle accident.

The appellant had opened her car door into the path of another vehicle.

The trial judge applied Rule 19(c) of the Fault Determination Rules and found the appellant wholly responsible.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error of fact and correctly applied the law.

The applicants sought an interim injunction preventing the respondent neighbour from erecting a fence across a narrow lane between adjoining residential properties.

The applicants claimed a prescriptive easement over the lane, asserting continuous, open, and uninterrupted use for over 50 years to access the rear of their property.

Applying the test in RJR‑MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the alleged easement.

The court further held that blocking the only exterior access to the applicants’ backyard and water meter would constitute irreparable harm and pose potential safety risks.

The balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo pending determination of the application.