David S. Thompson

Following a rear‑end motor vehicle collision, the plaintiffs sought damages for physical, psychological, and economic losses.

Liability was admitted, but the defendant disputed causation and the extent of damages, arguing the plaintiff’s ongoing back problems were attributable to a prior martial arts injury and pre‑existing disc herniation.

The court preferred the evidence of several treating and examining physicians and found the collision aggravated the pre‑existing disc condition, precipitating surgery that led to chronic pain and functional impairment.

The court also accepted expert psychological evidence that chronic pain and depression caused genuine cognitive impairments affecting the plaintiff’s work capacity.

Damages were awarded for general damages, loss of earning capacity, housekeeping costs, medical expenses, a per quod claim by the plaintiff’s company, and a Family Law Act claim by the plaintiff’s child.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its negligence claim against the respondent electrician, alleging the respondent damaged an armoured cable during installation, causing a fire.

The trial judge accepted the respondent's denial of severely abusing or yanking the cable, which rebutted the presumption of negligence suggested by the jointly retained expert.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or the adequacy of his reasons, and dismissed the appeal.

The moving parties sought court approval of a proposed settlement in a certified class proceeding relating to a leveraged charitable donation tax shelter.

Participants had claimed inflated charitable tax credits based on loans and security deposits connected to the program, which were later disallowed by the Canada Revenue Agency.

The settlement provided for an $11 million payment by a defendant law firm alleged to have issued legal opinions supporting the program’s legality, with funds distributed to class members and covering counsel fees and administration.

The court applied established factors governing settlement approval in class proceedings and found the agreement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given significant litigation risks.

The court also approved class counsel fees but declined to award additional compensation to the representative plaintiffs, finding their contribution commendable but not exceptional.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a decision conditionally certifying a class action against a parking management company with significantly narrower parameters than proposed.

The plaintiffs challenged the motion judge's dismissal of causes of action under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, unjust enrichment, and unconscionability, as well as the imposition of a limitation period and the exclusion of punitive damages as a common issue.

The Divisional Court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order and no conflicting decisions warranting leave.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order certifying a class action and an order refusing to strike the claim against the defendant law firm.

The underlying action involved a charitable gift program that was disallowed by the Canada Revenue Agency, leading to claims of breach of contract and negligence against the promoters and the law firm that provided tax opinions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusions that the common issues requirement was met and that the pleadings disclosed a tenable cause of action in negligence against the law firm.

The appellant held an automobile fleet insurance policy with the respondent insurer but failed to disclose that it had employed a driver with a record for impaired driving.

After the driver was involved in a serious accident, the insurer denied coverage for the claim.

The appellant argued that the insurer was required to void or cancel the policy rather than simply deny coverage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no support for the appellant's position and affirming that Standard OAP1 Policy s. 1.4 permits the insurer to deny claims when the insured fails to notify them of a significant change in risk.

The Court of Appeal issued an amended endorsement to include a costs provision that was inadvertently omitted from its original endorsement.

The appellants were ordered to pay costs to the respondents in the agreed-upon amount of $12,970 all-inclusive.

The appellants appealed a judgment holding them liable as guarantors of a line of credit extended to an automobile dealership.

They argued that a forged Acknowledgement provided to the bank vitiated their earlier guarantees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the bank never sought to enforce the forged document, the appellants suffered no prejudice, and the guarantor knowingly provided subsequent valid Acknowledgements.

Arguments regarding breach of a side agreement and lack of independent legal advice were also dismissed.

The respondent, a deputy chief of police, sought a declaration that the fixed-term provision in his employment contract was void after the police services board declined to renew it.

The application judge found the provision was a colourable device to bypass statutory termination procedures and declared it void.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment, finding no evidence of an ulterior motive.

The Court held that the expiry of a fixed-term contract does not constitute a dismissal under the Police Services Act, and that a three-year term does not undermine the independence required of a deputy chief.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary finding of guilt for neglect of duty and the penalties imposed for that offence, insubordination, and discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved engaging in a consensual sexual relationship with a civilian employee while on duty and misusing the police email system.

The Commission upheld the finding of guilt for neglect of duty, finding it was supported by the evidence.

However, the Commission varied the penalties, reducing a two-rank demotion to a one-rank demotion for twelve months, finding the hearing officer failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors such as the appellant's exemplary service record, remorse, and rehabilitation potential.

The appellant appealed a trial decision admitting an unsigned copy of his mother's 1997 will for probate.

The respondent, the testator's common law husband, had presented a 'cut and paste' photocopy after the original was lost.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in applying the test for proving a lost will and failed to consider suspicious circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the four-part test for proving a lost will, including rebutting the presumption of revocation and proving the contents.

The Court also held that the facts did not amount to suspicious circumstances that would vacate the presumption of testamentary capacity.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the calculation of sick leave credits under a collective agreement.

The applicant attempted to introduce affidavit evidence summarizing a witness's recollection of testimony to demonstrate the arbitrator's alleged errors.

The Divisional Court refused to admit the affidavit, finding no exceptional circumstances, and concluded the arbitrator did not lose jurisdiction.

The court held that the arbitrator's decision met the standard of reasonableness and dismissed the application with costs.

The defendants obtained a building permit to construct a liquid manure storage tank.

They were subsequently charged under the Conservation Authorities Act for building in a wetland.

At trial, the defendants called no evidence and successfully moved for a non-suit, relying on the defence of officially induced error based on the issuance of the building permit.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the defendants failed to establish the reliance element of the defence because they led no evidence to show they actually relied on the building permit as confirming compliance with the Conservation Authorities Act.

The appellant appealed the penalty of a five-day suspension imposed on a police officer for one count of discreditable conduct relating to the improper use of the CPIC system.

The appellant brought a preliminary motion to introduce new documentary evidence, which was dismissed as the evidence did not meet the Palmer test.

On the main appeal, the Commission reviewed the penalty and found that a five-day suspension was fair, appropriate, and consistent with similar cases involving unauthorized CPIC checks.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the penalty of a five-day suspension imposed on a police officer for discreditable conduct relating to the unauthorized use of the CPIC system.

The appellant brought a preliminary motion to introduce new documentary evidence, which the Commission dismissed as the evidence was not relevant, significant, or credible.

On the merits of the appeal, the Commission reviewed the penalty and found that a five-day suspension was a fair and appropriate sanction for the breach of confidence, consistent with prior decisions involving similar misconduct.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a civilian complainant, appealed the penalty imposed on a police officer for discreditable conduct relating to the unauthorized use of the CPIC system.

The officer had used CPIC to obtain information about the appellant, who was dating the officer's former girlfriend, and subsequently threatened the appellant.

The officer pled guilty and received a five-day suspension for this specific count.

The Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it lacked credibility and relevance.

On the merits, the Commission upheld the five-day suspension, concluding it was a fair and appropriate penalty that fell within the acceptable range for unauthorized CPIC use, balancing deterrence with the officer's potential for rehabilitation.

The applicant sought leave to appeal the penalty imposed on a police officer for discreditable conduct relating to the improper use of the CPIC system.

The applicant argued he was denied full participation in the hearing process, particularly regarding plea bargaining between the prosecutor and the officer.

The Commission noted that while leave to appeal is not automatic, the Police Services Act's Declaration of Principles emphasizes cooperation with communities and respect for victims.

Given the novel issues concerning a citizen's right to participate in the disciplinary process and the mandate for fundamental fairness, the Commission granted leave to appeal.

The applicant, a complainant in a police disciplinary matter, sought leave to appeal the penalty imposed on a police officer who pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct for improperly accessing the CPIC system.

The applicant argued he was denied full participation in the hearing process, particularly regarding plea bargaining that resulted in the withdrawal of other charges.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the novel issues raised concerning a citizen's right to participate in the disciplinary process and the fundamental fairness of the proceedings warranted an appeal under section 70(4) of the Police Services Act.

The applicant complainant sought leave to appeal the penalty imposed on a police officer for discreditable conduct relating to the improper use of the CPIC system.

The officer had pleaded guilty to certain charges while others were withdrawn following a plea bargain from which the complainant was excluded.

The respondent police service argued that leave should be denied based on the strict test for interlocutory appeals under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Commission held that it is not bound by the civil rules and has broad discretion under section 70(4) of the Police Services Act to grant leave where 'appropriate'.

Given the novel issues regarding a citizen's right to participate in the disciplinary process and the Act's Declaration of Principles, the Commission granted leave to appeal.

The appellants agreed to purchase a property, but the transaction failed to close after the respondent registered a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against title, claiming a right of first refusal.

A motion to discharge the CPL was dismissed on the basis that there was a triable issue.

The appellants subsequently sued the respondent for damages under s. 103(4) of the Courts of Justice Act for registering the CPL without a reasonable claim.

The trial judge dismissed the action, holding that the previous order refusing to discharge the CPL was a decision in rem and rendered the issue res judicata.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that a motion to discharge a CPL only determines whether there is a triable issue, not the ultimate merits of the claim, and therefore cannot support a plea of res judicata.