Carl E. Fleck

The plaintiff was injured when a park bench she sat on collapsed during a New Year's Eve event.

Shortly before, a town councillor had witnessed a vandal break the bench, but did not report it.

Someone subsequently propped the broken bench back up, making it appear normal.

The trial judge found the municipality liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act for failing to have on-site security and for the councillor's failure to report the damage.

The Court of Appeal allowed the municipality's appeal, holding that the trial judge failed to apply the correct standard of care.

The court found that someone propping up a broken bench to make it appear normal was not a sufficiently probable contingency that the municipality was required to foresee.

The respondent, an 80-year-old woman, slipped and fell on an icy municipal sidewalk after disembarking from a city transit bus.

She sued the appellant city in both negligence and breach of contract.

The trial judge found the negligence claims statute-barred but allowed the contract claim, holding that section 266 of the Insurance Act did not preclude it.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while section 266 does not automatically foreclose genuine actions in contract where a motor vehicle is merely incidental, the respondent's claim was essentially a disguised negligence claim.

As there was no independent contractual obligation imposing liability, the action was statute-barred and the appeal was allowed.

The Applicant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents in May 1994 and received other disability benefits for 104 weeks.

She applied for ongoing benefits beyond the 104-week mark, which requires a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Arbitrator found that while the Applicant's life had changed, she retained a number of abilities and was not continuously prevented from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities.

The claim for ongoing benefits and a special award was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty of admonition for neglect of duty after failing to attend court.

He argued that he had a reasonable excuse because his daughter was seriously ill, and that his testimony was ultimately not required.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the charge was substantiated and that the penalty of admonition already reflected fair consideration of his reasons for failing to attend.