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 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.