Donald R. Fiske

This motion concerned the court's approval under Rule 7 of a structured judgment and legal fees for Jason Clive Walters, a catastrophically injured plaintiff.

The court reviewed a proposal to reduce the structured settlement funding and approve additional legal fees for appeal and guardianship applications.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) provided a report raising concerns.

The court denied the proposed reduction in structure funding, finding no justification for decreasing Walters' monthly payments.

It also significantly reduced the requested legal fees for the appeal and leave application from $205,000 to $70,000, concurring with the PGT's objection.

Furthermore, the court ordered the Pace Law Firm to return $34,363.09 that had been paid without court approval for ODSP and guardianship work.

The court emphasized the importance of a holistic approach to approvals for persons under disability and the court's role as gatekeeper.

The plaintiff was seriously injured when attacked by a rival gang member in a provincial jail.

The plaintiff sued Ontario and others, alleging that a correctional officer was negligent in placing the plaintiff and the assailant in the same unit despite the jail's policy of separating members of the same gang.

The trial judge found for the plaintiff.

On appeal, Ontario argued that the policy negated any duty of care and that the trial judge erred in applying the standard of care and finding causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the policy did not negate the common law duty of care, that the correctional officer breached the standard of care by failing to consider inmate incompatibility, and that the negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries.

The moving party obtained a judgment for conversion against a lending corporation that unlawfully seized his equipment.

After the corporation declared bankruptcy, the moving party brought an action against the corporation's insurers under s. 132(1) of the Insurance Act.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that the tort of conversion involves interference with possessory rights, which does not constitute 'injury or damage to property' within the meaning of s. 132(1).

The claim was characterized as pure economic loss, which is not recoverable under the provision.

The plaintiff, an inmate and member of the Malvern Crew street gang, was severely beaten by a rival gang member while housed at the Don Jail.

He sued the Crown in negligence for placing him in the same unit as the rival gang member.

The court found that the Crown owed a duty of care and breached it by failing to consider inmate compatibility when applying its numeric balancing policy for housing gang members.

The Crown knew or ought to have known of the severe security threat posed by the rival gang member.

The court found the Crown liable for the assault, but reduced the damages by 15% due to the plaintiff's contributory negligence in failing to request protective custody.

Following a five‑day civil trial, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs argued that the results of the litigation were mixed and that this should affect the costs award.

The court rejected that characterization, finding the action brought by the plaintiffs was the principal issue and that the cross‑claim was of lesser significance.

Considering the principles in Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality and the reasonable expectations of the losing party, and having regard to settlement offers, the court fixed costs payable to the defendants.

The court conducted an assessment of damages following a prior ruling that the defendant’s security interest in the plaintiff’s equipment was invalid under s. 89(1) of the Indian Act.

The defendant had seized the equipment based on the invalid security interest, constituting the tort of conversion.

The court determined the fair value of the seized equipment using expert appraisal evidence and awarded damages reflecting the depreciated condition of the equipment.

The court also awarded limited loss of income damages, finding the plaintiff failed to adequately mitigate losses and restricting compensation to a one‑year period with a modest adjustment for borrowing difficulties.

Punitive damages were additionally awarded after the defendant’s agent improperly involved police in what was a civil debt dispute and falsely characterized the plaintiff as a thief.

The plaintiffs commenced an action alleging that $100,000 advanced to the defendants' corporation was a loan repayable on demand.

The defendants argued the payment formed part of an investment agreement under which the plaintiffs would purchase a 25% share of the company and become salaried employee-investors.

The court assessed the credibility of the witnesses and found the defendants' evidence more reliable.

The court concluded the transaction was a share purchase agreement with a non-refundable payment rather than a loan.

The plaintiffs therefore failed to establish their claim on a balance of probabilities.