Daniel Klein

The plaintiff sued a fitness instructor and gym for injuries sustained when an air-filled medicine ball bounced and hit her in the chin during a 'slam ball' exercise.

The plaintiff alleged the instructor was negligent for providing a bouncing ball without proper instruction or warning.

The court found that the instructor met the standard of care, having provided adequate verbal and visual instructions, and that using an air-filled ball was consistent with industry standards.

The action was dismissed, with the court concluding the plaintiff was the author of her own misfortune.

The defendants appealed a master's order granting the plaintiffs leave to amend their statement of claim to add the plaintiff's wife as a party and assert Family Law Act claims.

The defendants argued the claims were statute-barred and that the claim for medical injuries from mold exposure was not actionable.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that there was a reasonable explanation on proper evidence to raise an issue of fact regarding delayed discoverability, and that the novel tort claim under the Family Law Act had a reasonable prospect of success and should proceed to trial.

The plaintiff, Fabio Scalabrini, brought a motion to add his spouse, Cinzia Scalabrini, as a plaintiff to an existing motor vehicle accident action, seeking damages under the Family Law Act.

The motion was based on the discoverability principle, arguing that Cinzia's injuries and related losses, particularly those stemming from a mold issue in their home attributed to Fabio's accident-related incapacitation, only became apparent in late 2018.

The court considered Rules 5.04 and 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Limitations Act, 2002, finding that the statutory presumption of discoverability was rebutted.

The court granted leave to add Cinzia as a plaintiff, concluding there was a reasonable possibility she could not have known the full extent of her derivative injuries and losses earlier, and awarded costs to the moving party.

The plaintiff sought to add two proposed defendants, Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. and Rabcon Contractors Ltd., to a personal injury action more than two years after the accident.

The proposed defendants resisted the motion, arguing that the plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence in identifying them within the limitation period.

The court considered the discoverability principle, noting that the City of Toronto (the original defendant) had not disclosed the involvement of other parties in its initial response, pleadings, or discovery, despite having commenced a separate action for contribution and indemnity against the proposed defendants.

Applying proportionality and the principle that cases should be heard on their merits, the court found that no further diligence was required from the plaintiff given the circumstances.

The motion to add the proposed defendants was granted, with costs reserved to the ultimate trier of facts.