Gordon Jenish

The plaintiff pedestrian was struck by a left-turning pickup truck while crossing an intersection at night.

The plaintiff suffered a severe traumatic brain injury.

The plaintiff sued the driver, the municipality, and the municipality's electrical contractor, alleging the intersection was in a state of non-repair due to missing streetlights on the median.

The court found the driver 100% liable for failing to ensure the turn could be made safely.

The claims against the municipality and contractor were dismissed, as the intersection had sufficient illumination from other sources and was deemed in a state of repair under the Minimum Maintenance Standards.

Damages of approximately $2 million were awarded against the driver.

The plaintiffs in three related lawsuits arising from a fatal head-on automobile accident brought summary judgment motions to determine liability.

All parties agreed that liability could be determined by summary judgment but held diametrically opposed positions on who was liable.

The court found that the existence of competing expert accident reconstruction reports, particularly those based on computer simulations with unknown reliability, created genuine issues of material fact regarding causation.

The court also noted an "air of reality" to the contention that the deceased plaintiff's distracted driving might have contributed to the collision, despite a prior Highway Traffic Act conviction against one of the defendants.

Consequently, the motions for summary judgment were dismissed, as a full trial with oral testimony and cross-examination was deemed necessary to resolve the complex factual disputes and competing expert opinions.

The plaintiff, Margaret Ozimkowski, moved for partial summary judgment on liability against the defendant, Luc Raymond, following a rear-end motor vehicle collision on an icy road.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff's actions and the icy road conditions created a genuine issue for trial, and that granting partial summary judgment would risk inconsistent findings with his third-party claim against the County of Lanark.

The court found that the defendant failed to disprove his negligence, as the plaintiff's stop was reasonable given the conditions and visible emergency lights.

The court also determined that there was no risk of inconsistent findings with the third-party claim, as the issues were distinct.

Partial summary judgment on liability was granted to the plaintiff, with damages to be assessed at trial.

The plaintiff, a seven-year-old student, suffered a catastrophic brain bleed after being punched in the head by another student during recess.

The plaintiff sued the school board and its staff for negligent supervision.

The court found that while the punch caused the brain bleed due to the plaintiff's pre-existing undiagnosed arteriovenous malformation, the school board and staff were not negligent.

The general supervision of the schoolyard met the standard of a careful and prudent parent, and the offending student's prior minor misbehaviour did not warrant closer supervision.

The action was dismissed.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and bodily harm after his vehicle collided with a group of oncoming motorcyclists.

The Crown alleged the accused crossed the centre line while distracted by a text message.

The court reviewed conflicting eyewitness testimony and expert accident reconstruction evidence regarding the point of impact and whether the accused crossed the centre line.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's jurisprudence on dangerous driving, the court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was texting, that he crossed the centre line, or that his driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The appellant appealed an Arbitrator's decision denying a special award under s. 282(10) of the Insurance Act.

The insurer had denied accident benefits based on an engineering report and suspicions of a staged accident, partly due to the common ethnicity of the individuals involved.

The Director's Delegate found that the Arbitrator erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for concluding that the insurer reasonably relied on the engineering report, especially after the expert's testimony undermined the report's conclusions.

The appeal was allowed and the issue of the special award was returned to arbitration.

The applicant claimed accident benefits following a rear-end collision.

The insurer denied the claim, alleging the accident was staged and citing suspicious factors including the parties' shared ethnic background.

At arbitration, both parties presented accident reconstruction experts whose evidence the arbitrator rejected as unreliable.

However, based on the consistent testimony of the applicant and his passenger, supported by physical evidence such as paint transfer and airbag deployment, the arbitrator found the accident did occur.

The applicant's claim for a special award under s. 282(10) of the Insurance Act was dismissed; although the arbitrator condemned the insurer's consideration of race as a suspicious factor, he found the insurer had principally and reasonably relied on its expert's opinion to deny the claim.