D. Cutler

The plaintiff brought an occupiers’ liability action after suffering a fractured navicular bone when she unknowingly stepped off a single step on a crowded outdoor patio at a pub.

The court found the step created a foreseeable hazard because the change in elevation was not visually discernible due to uniform decking colour, poor lighting, and lack of warning markings or visual cues.

The occupier breached its statutory duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act by failing to take reasonable steps to make the premises reasonably safe.

The court rejected the defence of contributory negligence, finding the plaintiff had no reason to anticipate the step and a momentary glance at a friend did not constitute inattention.

Damages were awarded for pain and suffering, special damages, loss of earning capacity, and future care costs.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action, the court assessed the costs payable to the successful defendants on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs had settled costs with the Accountant Defendants for $550,000.

The court reviewed the bills of costs submitted by the Lawyer Defendants, the Katz Defendants, and the Leikin Group Inc. The court made several reductions to the amounts claimed, noting issues with top-heavy staffing, excessive time spent on documentary discovery, and duplication of effort.

The court ultimately awarded substantial indemnity costs totaling $2,340,485.75 across the three remaining sets of defendants.

The plaintiffs, selling shareholders in a family-owned group of companies, brought an action against the non-selling shareholders, the companies' lawyers, and accountants.

They alleged breach of fiduciary duty, oppression, and knowing assistance arising from a share redemption transaction.

The plaintiffs claimed the defendants failed to disclose material information regarding the potential sale of a core asset to a third party at a higher value.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the share redemption was a product of self-interested negotiations where both sides had independent advice.

No ad hoc fiduciary duty was owed by the non-selling shareholders, lawyers, or accountants to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs' expectations were not reasonable under the oppression remedy.