Ian Wollach

The plaintiff was involved in a head-on motor vehicle collision caused by the defendants.

The defendants did not contest liability.

The trial focused on the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and damages.

The plaintiff claimed to have suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, chronic pain, and psychiatric injuries, rendering him unable to return to his employment as a Lead Hand electrician for the City of Guelph.

The defendants argued the plaintiff's injuries were exaggerated and that he could return to work with accommodation.

The court accepted the evidence of the plaintiff and his treating medical experts, finding that he suffered permanent and serious impairments, including cognitive deficits, vision and hearing issues, and chronic pain.

The court awarded the plaintiff $225,000 in general damages, $38,177.40 in special damages, $75,308 for past lost wages, $1,282,074 for future income loss, and $735,092 for future care costs.

The plaintiff suffered a severe quadriceps rupture after slipping and falling on a poorly lit, defectively designed stairway at a Sandals resort in Saint Lucia.

The court applied Saint Lucian law to determine liability, finding the resort breached its duty of care as an occupier.

The plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for descending the stairs in the dark.

Applying Ontario law for the quantification of damages, the court awarded general damages, future care costs, and special damages, rejecting the defendants' arguments that the plaintiff's pre-existing osteoarthritis or a subsequent re-injury broke the chain of causation.

This is the damages phase of a multi-party action brought by 28 former patients of the Oak Ridge Division of the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre.

In the liability phase, the defendants (two psychiatrists and the Crown) were found liable for breach of fiduciary duty and battery for subjecting the plaintiffs to experimental and harmful psychiatric programs (DDT, Capsule, and MAPP) between the 1960s and 1980s.

The court assessed general, punitive, and income loss damages on an individual basis.

General damages were awarded to all plaintiffs, ranging from nominal amounts to over $2 million for the most severely impacted.

Punitive damages were awarded in cases involving particularly egregious conduct, such as the treatment of underage patients or the administration of alcohol to known alcoholics.

Income loss claims were largely limited or barred by the ex turpi causa doctrine, which prevented recovery for periods the plaintiffs spent lawfully incarcerated or institutionalized for subsequent criminal offenses.

During a trial, the plaintiffs brought a motion to qualify a forensic accountant to give expert evidence on the quantification of income loss and to respond to the defendants' experts' use of the HALS/PALS statistical approach.

The defendants argued the accountant was not qualified to comment on the HALS/PALS approach.

The court held that while the accountant lacked medical or vocational expertise to apply the HALS/PALS data, his experience in valuation methodology qualified him to opine on the comparative merits of individualized versus statistical approaches to discount rates.

The expert was qualified to give opinion evidence on accounting issues and valuation methodology.

The plaintiff, an 18-year-old soccer player, suffered an electric shock from stray voltage leaking from a light pole at a municipally-owned sports field.

The shock was caused by internal damage to the pole's wiring resulting from a recent lightning strike.

The plaintiff sued the municipality under the Occupiers' Liability Act, claiming physical and psychological injuries, including PTSD.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the specific nature of the electrical failure was highly unusual and not reasonably foreseeable.

The court concluded that the municipality had met its standard of care by adhering to regular inspection and maintenance protocols, and was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries.

In a medical negligence trial arising from elective refractive eye surgery, the court found the defendant ophthalmologist failed to obtain informed consent and breached the standard of care in performing RK surgeries with an excessively small clear zone, incisions extending into the limbus, and a later astigmatic keratectomy involving intersecting incisions.

The court accepted that these negligent procedures caused progressive corneal instability, irregular astigmatism, scarring, glare, fluctuating vision, and loss of depth perception that prevented the plaintiff from continuing to practise dentistry.

A later cataract surgery was found to meet the standard of care and did not materially contribute to the disability.

The court rejected arguments on mitigation, punitive damages, and deduction of privately purchased disability benefits, and awarded substantial damages including income loss, general damages, special damages, OHIP subrogation, and a Family Law Act award.

The applicant, the common-law spouse of the deceased, brought a dependent's support claim against the deceased's intestate estate.

Prior to the deceased's death, the applicant transferred approximately $570,000 to herself while acting as his Power of Attorney.

The court found that despite these transfers, the estate had not adequately provided for the applicant's future needs and the deceased's moral obligations.

The court awarded the applicant the farm house property, the funds already received, and an additional cash payment, totaling approximately half of the estate's value.

Following a jury trial where the plaintiffs recovered $68,250 in damages, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The defendant argued that no costs should be awarded under Rule 76.13 because the recovery was under $100,000.

The court rejected this argument, finding it was reasonable to use the ordinary procedure given the substantial loss of income claim advanced at trial.

The court reduced the plaintiffs' claimed costs due to the failure of the loss of income claim, excessive rates, and duplication of work.

The court also allowed the plaintiffs' disbursement for costs insurance, noting it promotes access to justice.

The plaintiffs were awarded $58,000 in fees and $28,000 in disbursements, plus HST.

The plaintiff, an RCMP officer, brought a civil action against the RCMP and his superior officers for harassment, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and other torts.

The claims arose after the plaintiff participated in a political nomination meeting, which led his superiors to punitively transfer him out of national security work, initiate an unfounded internal investigation into his credit card use, and stand him down during a national security emergency.

The Superior Court of Justice recognized the tort of harassment in Ontario and found that the defendants' conduct was outrageous, flagrant, and caused the plaintiff severe emotional distress.

The court awarded the plaintiff $100,000 in general damages and $41,000 in special damages for lost income due to delayed promotional opportunities.

The plaintiff was severely injured in a motorcycle accident in Jamaica.

She retained the defendant lawyer to investigate potential insurance claims.

The lawyer advised that her family's Ontario automobile insurance policy would not provide accident benefits due to a territorial restriction limiting coverage to North America, and thus did not file an application for benefits before the two-year limitation period expired.

The plaintiff sued the lawyer for professional negligence, arguing he should have filed the application to preserve her rights, especially given subsequent changes in case law.

The court dismissed the action, finding the lawyer met the standard of care of a reasonably competent expert in insurance law at the time, and that an application for benefits would likely have been denied anyway.

The plaintiff sought damages arising from childhood sexual assaults committed by a priest who stood in a position of trust and authority.

Civil liability was established through the defendant's criminal conviction, leaving quantum as the sole issue.

The court awarded substantial non-pecuniary damages, pecuniary damages for lost college-level earning capacity and future treatment costs, punitive damages, and prejudgment interest.

The court accepted expert psychological and accounting evidence linking the abuse to long-term psychiatric injury, impaired educational attainment, reduced occupational achievement, and ongoing treatment needs.