Danette Cheryl Cashman

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of two summary judgment motions: one by the City of Toronto against the plaintiffs, and another by the Toronto Terminal Railway Company in its cross-claim against the City.

The court, exercising its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, ordered that the costs of both motions be "in the cause." This decision was based on the principle that the merits of the action had not yet been determined, the work product from the motions would be useful at trial, and the moving parties could still be successful at trial, making an immediate costs award premature.

The plaintiffs initiated an action against the City of Toronto, Toronto Port Lands Company, and Toronto Terminal Railway Company following a bicycle accident on a path crossing railway tracks.

The City and Toronto Port Lands Company moved for summary judgment to dismiss the main action, while the Toronto Terminal Railway Company moved for summary judgment to dismiss the City's crossclaim for contribution and indemnity.

The court found that conflicting expert opinions on causation and standard of care presented genuine issues requiring a trial.

Furthermore, the court determined that granting partial summary judgment on the crossclaim would risk inconsistent findings and injustice due to the intertwined nature of the issues.

Both motions for summary judgment were dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.

The plaintiffs initiated an action against the City of Toronto, Toronto Port Lands Company, and Toronto Terminal Railway Company following a bicycle accident on a path crossing railway tracks.

The City and Toronto Port Lands Company moved for summary judgment to dismiss the main action, while the Toronto Terminal Railway Company moved for summary judgment to dismiss the City's crossclaim for contribution and indemnity.

The court found that conflicting expert opinions on causation and standard of care presented genuine issues requiring a trial.

Furthermore, the court determined that granting partial summary judgment on the crossclaim would risk inconsistent findings and injustice due to the intertwined nature of the issues.

Both motions for summary judgment were dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.

The plaintiff brought an action against the municipality and its snow removal contractor after slipping and falling on a snowy sidewalk.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the municipality was not grossly negligent as it had a reasonable general policy for snow removal and responded reasonably to the specific snow event.

The court also found the municipality could rely on statutory defences under the City of Toronto Act, and that the contractor had complied with its contractual obligations.

A municipality brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a negligence claim arising from a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by a curb stone that had moved from a grassy boulevard onto a roadway.

The dispute centered on which municipality had jurisdiction over the portion of the boulevard from which the curb stone originated.

Evidence including a survey established that the relevant land fell within the jurisdiction of another municipality that was responsible for roadway maintenance under the Municipal Act.

The court held that the moving municipality had no legal responsibility for the hazard and therefore owed no duty in respect of the curb stone.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action against the moving municipality.