Donald Rollo

This appeal arose from a civil jury trial concerning a collision between a motorist and a pedestrian, Jasmine Jarvis, who suffered severe brain injuries.

The jury at trial found the motorist not liable.

The appellants (plaintiffs) appealed, arguing the trial was unfair due to the admission of irrelevant and prejudicial bad character evidence (Ms. Jarvis fleeing a taxi without paying fare) and inflammatory remarks by respondent counsel.

The Court of Appeal found the taxi fare evidence inadmissible and its prejudicial impact outweighed its probative value.

The court also found respondent counsel's jury address inflammatory and the trial judge's instructions inadequate to cure the prejudice.

The appeal was allowed, the cross-appeal (on costs) was dismissed, and a new trial was ordered.

This costs endorsement arises from a pedestrian motor vehicle accident case where the jury found no negligence against the defendant driver, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found that Rule 49.10 did not apply as the plaintiff obtained no judgment.

The court exercised its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure to decline awarding costs against the principal plaintiff, Jasmine Jarvis, citing the tragic circumstances of her severe traumatic brain injury, her limited ability to pay, and procedural unfairness during the trial where irrelevant character evidence was improperly introduced.

No costs were awarded against the Family Law Act claimants (grandparents) due to their derivative claims and limited financial means.

The plaintiff architect brought a construction lien action for unpaid fees against the defendant developer of a high-rise condominium.

The developer counterclaimed for delay and impact damages, alleging the architect failed to coordinate consultant drawings and made design errors.

The court found the architect's coordination duty was limited to cooperating with other consultants, not managing them.

The architect met the professional standard of care and validly suspended services for non-payment.

The court awarded the architect $55,906.54 for agreed base services but dismissed claims for unapproved extras.

The developer's counterclaim was dismissed entirely.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

In the absence of costs submissions from the responding parties, costs were fixed in the amount of $2,500 payable within 30 days.

The moving party, Onespace Unlimited Inc., brought a motion to strike portions of a reply affidavit sworn by the responding party's principal witness in advance of a summary trial.

The moving party argued the impugned statements contained improper argument, opinion evidence from a lay witness, and legal conclusions.

The court granted the motion in part, striking statements that constituted improper argument or unqualified expert opinion, while retaining statements that were factual observations or inextricably tied to the witness's overall impressions.

The defendant, Great Lakes Nickel Limited, brought a motion in writing for an order directing that money paid into court be returned.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion.

The court determined that the issues would benefit from oral submissions and adjourned the matter for an oral hearing pursuant to Rule 37.12.1(4)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellants, judgment creditors of 798839 Ontario Limited (39), appealed a summary judgment decision.

The original motion judge found that 39 had not satisfied the contractual prerequisites to acquire an interest in a mining development, specifically by failing to expend the required funds on the specified property, with a portion diverted to another project.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's interpretation of the contract and finding no error in her consideration of the factual matrix.

The court emphasized that contractual interpretation must primarily rely on the plain language of the agreement and that surrounding circumstances should not overwhelm the text or create a new agreement.

The Plaintiffs, judgment creditors of 798839 Ontario Limited ("39"), brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that 39 held a valid and subsisting interest in mining claims under a 1988 option agreement with Great Lakes Nickel Limited ("GLN").

The Plaintiffs argued that 39 had acquired an 80% interest or, alternatively, a 60% interest, despite only expending approximately $1.6 million of the required $2 million.

The court, interpreting the plain wording of the option agreement, found that 39 was required to invest the full $2 million to acquire an 80% interest, failing which the option terminated and 39 acquired no interest.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' motion, granting summary judgment in favour of GLN on this issue, while declining to address other issues like limitations due to the partial nature of the summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following the appeals in Westerhof v. Gee Estate and McCallum v. Baker.

The court ordered that the costs of the appeal in McCallum v. Baker be awarded to the respondent, fixed in the amount of $60,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

Two personal injury appeals were heard together to determine the scope of Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding expert witnesses.

The Court of Appeal held that Rule 53.03 does not apply to 'participant experts' (such as treating physicians) or 'non-party experts' who form opinions based on their observation of or participation in the events at issue, rather than being engaged by a party for the litigation.

In Westerhof, the trial judge's erroneous exclusion of such evidence warranted a new trial.

In McCallum, the trial judge correctly admitted the treating practitioners' opinion evidence.