David Scott

The appellant appealed a trial judge's finding of liability for a fire that destroyed his hotel and damaged adjacent buildings owned by the respondents.

The trial judge had accepted the respondents' expert evidence that the fire was caused by a defective boiler and inadequate clearance of its exhaust ventilation duct.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge provided insufficient reasons and failed to articulate the standard of care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons adequately explained his resolution of the conflicting expert evidence and his conclusion that the appellant's failure to maintain the boiler breached the standard of care and caused the fire.

The plaintiffs brought a negligence action against a municipality arising from a single‑vehicle collision on a rural road curve that caused catastrophic injuries to a young driver.

The court considered whether the municipality breached its duty under s. 44 of the Municipal Act to keep the roadway in a reasonable state of repair, focusing primarily on inadequate warning signage and the absence of an advisory speed sign for a sharp curve.

Expert evidence established that proper signage, including a 40 km/h advisory speed tab and additional warning devices required by the Ontario Traffic Manual, should have been installed.

The municipality had not conducted any evaluation of the signage following amalgamation and allowed substandard signage to remain in place for years.

The court found the municipality liable for failing to maintain the road in a reasonable state of repair, but also held the driver contributorily negligent for failing to sufficiently reduce speed in snowy conditions.

Orlando Corporation appealed the trial judge's disposition of costs following a construction negligence trial where damages were reduced by 90% due to contributory negligence.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by combining two separate offers to settle under Rule 49.10 and by failing to reduce the respondent's costs despite its expert witness misleading the court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly exercised his discretion to depart from the strict application of Rule 49.10 to avoid an unfair result, and appropriately balanced the witness's conduct against the appellant's minimal success at trial.