Edward John Chadderton

Following a jury trial in a motor vehicle accident case, the court addressed three post-trial issues: (1) whether Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) payments received by the plaintiff should be deducted from the past income loss award; (2) the amount of partial indemnity costs payable; and (3) the amount of assessable disbursements.

The court held that CERB payments were not deductible as they were not paid "in respect of the incident" under the Insurance Act, and the plaintiff faced potential repayment obligations.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $327,700.00 (inclusive of HST) and allowed all claimed disbursements of $167,894.62, including expert meeting costs and home modification reports.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend her Statement of Claim and to examine a former employee of the defendant as a non-party witness, after the action had already been set down for trial.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that a change in the law regarding the Consumer Protection Act's application to waivers, the discovery that the witness was no longer employed by the defendant, and the pending summary judgment motion constituted a substantial change in circumstances.

The court also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendant.

Leave to examine the non-party witness was granted with terms to prevent a reopening of discovery.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse for professional misconduct.

The member admitted to physically and emotionally abusing an elderly, fall-risk patient by forcefully pulling her down a hallway, pushing her into her room, and leaving her in the dark without ensuring she was safely in bed.

The member also admitted to failing to maintain a professional relationship with a colleague who had offered assistance.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and found the member committed professional misconduct.

Pursuant to a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, noting the member had already signed an undertaking to permanently resign from the profession.

The plaintiff suffered catastrophic injuries in a snowboarding accident and sued the resort and others.

In a separate action, the plaintiff sued a rehabilitation centre for negligent care.

The resort brought a third-party claim against the rehabilitation centre in the main action for contribution and indemnity.

The rehabilitation centre moved to strike the third-party claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The court granted the motion, finding that because the plaintiff had expressly limited his claim against the resort to its several share of liability, the resort faced no risk of paying a disproportionate share of damages.

Consequently, the third-party claim for contribution and indemnity was untenable in law.

This addendum addresses procedural issues arising from the Court of Appeal's March 28, 2018 decision allowing both appeals and a cross-appeal.

The court clarified that: (1) a "no order as to costs" provision can apply to both parties and interveners; (2) conclusions regarding statutory interpretation and waiver applicability should not be reflected in the formal order but only in the reasons; and (3) separate formal orders must be taken out for the merits decision and the costs decision, each bearing the date of its respective release.

This is a costs endorsement following the Court of Appeal's decision allowing both appeals and a cross-appeal in two consolidated ski resort injury cases.

The court set aside the orders of the Superior Court and remitted the matters back for further proceedings.

The primary issue on costs was whether any party should recover their appellate costs.

Blue Mountain Resorts and the respondents argued for no costs award due to the novelty of the legal issues, while Snow Valley sought partial indemnity costs of $25,000.

Two consolidated appeals concerning the enforceability of liability waivers executed by ski resort patrons.

The central issue was whether the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) or the Occupiers' Liability Act (OLA) governs the relationship between ski resorts and patrons who purchased ski tickets and executed waivers as a condition of entry.

The lower courts held that the CPA applied and voided the waivers.

The Court of Appeal held that the OLA and CPA conflict, and that the more specific OLA provisions prevail over the general CPA provisions.

The court allowed the appeals and held that the waivers were valid and enforceable.

The plaintiff brought a special case under Rule 22 to determine the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (CPA) to a ski package transaction and the enforceability of liability waivers.

The court found that the CPA applies broadly to consumer transactions for services, including ski packages, and that waivers purporting to negate the implied warranty of reasonably acceptable quality services are presumptively void under s. 9(3) of the CPA.

While such terms are severable under s. 9(4), the court retains equitable jurisdiction under s. 93(2) to bind the consumer to them, with the onus on the supplier to prove it would be inequitable not to.

The court also determined that the Occupiers Liability Act (OLA) does not supersede the CPA in this context, meaning the occupier is not "free" to restrict liability for services where the CPA applies.

The plaintiff was injured in a boating accident involving two defendants.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff entered into a Mary Carter agreement with one defendant, receiving a settlement of $365,000 for damages.

At trial, the jury assessed total damages at $312,021 and apportioned liability between the plaintiff and both defendants.

The trial judge refused to deduct the settlement amount from the damage award and ordered the non-settling defendant to pay his proportionate share.

The non-settling defendant appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the settlement monies must be deducted from the total damage award to prevent double recovery.

Since the settlement exceeded the total damages assessed, the action against the non-settling defendant was dismissed.