Charlie Fuhr

The plaintiff, a welder, was injured on the defendant Yaya Foods Corporation's premises due to a faulty excavator operated by an independent contractor.

Yaya Foods brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing it was not liable as an occupier under the Occupiers' Liability Act for the independent contractor's equipment failure.

The court granted the motion, finding that the OLA does not impose a duty on an occupier to inspect the tools used by an independent contractor for safety.

Consequently, Yaya Foods was not found liable for the equipment's lack of maintenance, and the action against them was dismissed.

The Applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal assessed her mental and behavioural impairments under criterion 8, applying the AMA Guides.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the Applicant's psychiatrist over the respondent's psychologist, finding the latter's report inconsistent with his testimony and test results.

The Tribunal concluded the Applicant suffered a marked impairment in three spheres of function (Activities of Daily Living, Social Functioning, and Adaptation) due to Somatic Symptom Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.

The Tribunal declared the Applicant catastrophically impaired.

The applicant Estate Trustee sought directions at a case conference regarding multiple late affidavits filed by the respondents, who had refused to vacate the deceased's property.

The court ordered that portions of the respondents' affidavits be struck for improperly referencing without prejudice settlement offers, attempting to relitigate previously decided issues, and raising matters outside the scope of the application.

Noting the respondent Michael Siiman's history as a declared vexatious litigant and his abusive conduct, the court imposed strict procedural conditions for the upcoming hearing, including communication restrictions and a prohibition on filing further affidavits.

The applicant, William David George Whitfield, initiated a Will Challenge against the estate of Tamara Leigh Whitfield, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by the respondent, Donald Murray Glover.

The respondent moved to dismiss the challenge, while the applicant cross-moved for production of medical records and preservation of a Facebook account.

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the minimum evidentiary threshold for both lack of capacity and undue influence, dismissing the Will Challenge.

Consequently, the applicant's cross-motion was rendered moot and dismissed.

Costs were awarded against the applicant, with a portion payable from the estate and a portion personally.

The defendant, Open Storage Solutions Inc., brought a motion to set aside the plaintiff's notice of examination for Don Gilles and substitute Sathiyan Ratnam as the corporate representative for discovery in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff, Simon Jeffrey, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that the defendant failed to meet the onus to show that Mr. Gilles was an inappropriate witness, and afforded little weight to the defendant's supporting affidavit sworn by an articling student due to its non-compliance with affidavit rules.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The moving party sought to set aside or vary an ex parte order that required her to file an application for a certificate of appointment of estate trustee or be deemed to have renounced.

The court found that the responding party failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts on the ex parte motion, specifically omitting that the moving party's counsel had responded and sought production of the drafting lawyer's file.

The ex parte order was set aside under Rule 39.01(6).

However, the court declined to grant the moving party's requested variation to compel production of the file, finding it overly broad for a motion to vary.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the moving party.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to provide further answers to undertakings and improperly refused questions during discovery in an $18 million damages claim.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to provide further answers regarding medication lists, symptoms communicated to counsel, expert reports from prior UK litigation, wheelchair funding applications, conservatory planning documents, and memoir drafts/notes.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct in delaying discovery compliance warranted substantial indemnity costs.