Chad Michael Leddy

This decision addresses whether the owner of a vehicle (Floyd Thomas) provided implied consent to his son (Robert Thomas) to possess and operate the vehicle, which was involved in a serious accident.

The court found that there was no implied consent, based on clear evidence that Robert knew he did not have permission, and that Floyd had a consistent history of restricting access.

The court declined to dismiss the action entirely, as other negligence issues remained for trial.

The plaintiff sought damages for a slip and fall incident on the steps of a store during snowy winter conditions.

The court found the defendant, Bayview Summit Development Limited, 75% liable for failing to maintain a sufficient system of inspection, monitoring, and maintenance of the premises.

The plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout and not using the handrail.

The decision emphasizes the occupier's duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act and the standard of reasonableness, not perfection.

The plaintiff was injured in a vehicle accident and sued for negligence.

The trial judge found the defendants entirely responsible for the accident but held that the plaintiff had not suffered a "permanent and serious injury" under the Insurance Act, thus precluding non-pecuniary damages.

The trial judge awarded $1,680 for lost income and $40,000 in costs to the plaintiff.

The defendants cross-appealed, challenging the trial judge's decision to allow a late amendment to include a lost income claim and the costs award.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's discretion in allowing the late amendment, finding no prejudice to the defence.

However, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal the costs order, concluding that the trial judge erred by overemphasizing the defendants' failure to make a settlement offer, given that the lost income claim (the only successful claim) was not clearly articulated until the end of trial.

The Court of Appeal varied the trial order to provide for no costs at trial and awarded the defendants costs of the appeal.

The appellants, homeowners Rinku Deswal and Tajinder Oberoi, appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against ADT Security Services following a robbery.

They argued ADT was negligent for not advising them of a cellular backup option and that the limitation of liability clause in their Residential Alarm Services Agreement was unenforceable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings that ADT had no duty to advise on other services, especially given the appellants' sophistication and their failure to read the contract.

The court also upheld the enforceability of the limitation of liability clause, applying the Tercon framework and public policy considerations that alarm service providers are not insurers.

The plaintiff was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision.

The owner of the vehicle, a rental car company (2180571 Ontario Ltd. operating as "Practicar"), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim against it, arguing it was not vicariously liable for the driver's negligence.

Co-defendants, The Personal Insurance Company and PAFCO Insurance Company, opposed the motion, seeking a finding of vicarious liability against Practicar.

The court found that the individual who rented the car, despite using a fraudulent identity, was a "lessee" under the Highway Traffic Act.

Consequently, her consent to the negligent driver operating the vehicle was deemed the owner's consent, making Practicar vicariously liable.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and claims against the insurers were dismissed.

The appellant, injured while moving out of the respondent's home, sued for damages under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding no duty of care between co-occupiers and no breach of duty.

The Court of Appeal held that one occupier can indeed owe a duty of care to another under the Act, correcting the motion judge's legal error.

However, the appeal was dismissed on the alternative ground that the appellant failed to prove a breach of duty, as the alleged hazard was not sufficiently proven and the appellant was aware of the unevenness.

Costs of the original motion were reduced.

The appellants (plaintiffs) appealed an order from Master Jolley compelling them to provide answers to outstanding undertakings from their examination for discovery and to pay costs.

The grounds of appeal included misapprehension of evidence regarding the undertakings chart, error in not granting an adjournment of the motion, and the order not reflecting the Master's handwritten endorsement.

The court found no palpable or overriding error by Master Jolley, noting the appellants' delay in providing supporting documents for their undertakings and their failure to object to the draft order.

The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were invited to make submissions on costs for the appeal.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim arising from a trip and fall on her premises.

The central issue was whether the plaintiff, who had cohabited with the defendant and contributed to household expenses and maintenance, was an 'occupier' or a 'visitor' under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The court found that the plaintiff was a co-occupier, exercising sufficient control over the premises, and therefore could not maintain a claim against the defendant under the Act.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the plaintiff's claim, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as statute-barred, the defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity scale for both the motion and the action.

The plaintiff did not object to the costs for the motion but argued that Rule 20.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure precluded awarding costs for the action as a whole.

The court rejected that interpretation, holding that the rule does not foreclose costs where a summary judgment motion results in dismissal of the action.

Objections to discovery-related fees and preparation for trial charges were also dismissed.

The court found the defendants’ bill of costs reasonable and awarded the full amount requested.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a slip-and-fall claim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff argued that the injury initially appeared de minimus and was not discovered until later when an x-ray revealed a fracture.

The court held that the plaintiff experienced pain and swelling immediately after the incident and sought medical treatment within days, which was sufficient to trigger discoverability.

Applying the principles governing summary judgment and the "full appreciation test", the court found the issue suitable for determination on the motion record.

The alleged injury was not trivial and the limitation period began when the accident occurred.