Daniel James Holland

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision barring her civil action against the respondents for injuries sustained in a parking lot fall.

The Tribunal found that although the applicant was paid by a numbered company, the respondent Sargent Farms Limited was her de facto employer and she was in the course of her employment at the time of the accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's conclusion that the respondent extensively controlled her employment was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering it to pay the insured's medical expenses under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred in law by deeming the expenses incurred under s. 3(8) without finding that payment was unreasonably withheld or delayed.

The Divisional Court agreed the Tribunal erred in its alternate reliance on s. 3(8), but dismissed the appeal because the Tribunal's primary conclusion—that the expenses were actually incurred under s. 3(7)—was a finding of fact supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's dismissal of two actions: one against the City of Toronto for a slip and fall on a sidewalk, and another against the TTC for a transit injury.

The appellant alleged numerous errors, primarily challenging the trial judge's factual and credibility findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the trial judge's adverse credibility findings against the appellant were entitled to deference and contained no palpable and overriding errors.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding that the City was not grossly negligent and that the thin-skull principle did not apply because causation was not established.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's slip and fall action, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the plaintiff acted unreasonably during mediation and pre-trials.

The court found that while the plaintiff's evidence involved exaggeration and his refusal to compromise was unreasonable, his behaviour did not rise to the level of reprehensible conduct required for elevated costs.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs in the amount of $139,821.66.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's personal injury action, the successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs based on the plaintiff's fabricated claims and an unaccepted offer to settle.

The court held that Rule 49.10 does not permit substantial indemnity costs for a successful defendant, and the plaintiff's conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible conduct required to justify elevated costs.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs in the amount of $193,043.98.

The plaintiff brought two negligence actions: one against the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) and its driver for a bus door incident, and another against the City of Toronto for a slip and fall on an icy sidewalk.

The court dismissed both actions, finding no negligence on the part of the defendants and significant credibility issues with the plaintiff regarding his injuries, pain, and efforts to return to work.

The court also found that the plaintiff's alleged psychological injuries were not causally linked to the TTC accident or were too remote.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her slip and fall claim following a jury trial.

She argued the trial judge erred by failing to discharge the jury after the respondents' counsel made allegedly prejudicial comments in his closing address regarding the credibility of independent witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly exercised his discretion to retain the jury and provide a correcting instruction, and that the jury's verdict would inevitably have been the same given the evidence.