D. Lester

The plaintiffs moved for an order extending the time to set two motor vehicle accident cases down for trial until December 31, 2024.

All parties consented except the Ministry of Transportation and Carillion Canada.

The court found that the opposing defendants would not be prejudiced by the extension, whereas the plaintiffs and other defendants would suffer prejudice if forced to set the action down while an appeal regarding a refusals motion was pending.

The motion to extend the time was granted.

The defendant in a slip and fall personal injury action brought a motion seeking production of the plaintiff's pre-accident medical and employment records.

The plaintiff claimed damages for injuries to her right ankle and left knee, while the defendant argued her pre-existing chronic back and ankle conditions were relevant to assessing her original position and future functioning.

The court ordered production of the records, but limited the scope to documents specifically relating to back, ankle, leg, and foot issues from 2001 or 2003 onwards, finding that her entire medical history was not relevant.

The plaintiff, a teacher's aide, slipped and fell at a municipally run daycare located in a school.

The WSIB brought a subrogated claim against the landlord school board.

The school board brought a third-party claim against the tenant municipality for contribution and indemnity under their lease agreement.

Both parties brought motions to determine questions of law regarding the lease's insurance and indemnity clauses.

The court found that the tenant had contractually assumed the risk of damages arising from the maintenance of the premises and was required to defend and indemnify the landlord school board.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant municipality to answer questions refused during an examination for discovery.

The underlying action involved a trip and fall on a city sidewalk, and the plaintiffs sought to ask whether the city implemented new policies and procedures for street lighting inspections after the incident.

The court granted the motion, holding that questions regarding post-incident remedial measures are relevant at the discovery stage as they may provide evidence of reasonable care, reasonable standards, prior knowledge, or the feasibility of taking precautionary steps.

The plaintiffs successfully defeated the defendant's motion to dismiss their defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs.

The defendant argued that no costs should be awarded pursuant to the presumption in s. 137.1(8).

The court distinguished prior case law, finding the plaintiffs were individuals protecting their reputations, not a corporation using strategic litigation.

The court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs, fixing fees at $7,500 plus disbursements and HST.

The defendant, a former police officer convicted of dangerous driving causing death, made Facebook posts implying the deceased victim contributed to the fatal collision and criticizing her family.

The plaintiffs (the victim's family) sued for defamation, intentional infliction of mental distress, and intrusion upon seclusion.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Facebook posts did not relate to a matter of public interest, but rather to the defendant's personal desire to shift blame and criticize private individuals.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal claim, arguing it was statute-barred under s. 97(2) of the Employment Standards Act because the plaintiff had previously filed an ESA complaint.

The plaintiff, who was terminated for alleged theft of prescriptions, also pleaded intentional torts including negligent misrepresentation and conspiracy.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the ESA adjudication scheme was not intended to bar independent claims for intentional torts, and the civil action should proceed to trial where the trial judge can determine if the severance claim is barred alongside the independent causes of action.