Jeff Archbold

The defendant contractor brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for damages arising from a slip and fall on a temporary ramp constructed during road work.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on liability.

The court found that the defendant was an occupier and breached its statutory duty of care by constructing an unmarked, unlit temporary ramp with a drop-off.

The court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion, finding the defendant liable for the fall, and ordered the issue of damages to proceed to trial.

Stephanie Becker, a 14-year-old, was severely injured by shattering glass at a community centre.

She sued the City of Toronto for negligence under the Occupiers’ Liability Act, alleging the glass in an office door was annealed glass, not the required tempered safety glass.

The court found the City breached its duty of care by installing annealed glass, which did not meet minimum building code standards.

The injury was found to be caused by this breach and was reasonably foreseeable given the public nature of the centre and minimal supervision.

Damages were settled, and the case proceeded on liability.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for negligence and breach of the Occupiers' Liability Act after falling in a grocery store parking lot.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the action.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff's expert opinion regarding an unexpected curb height lacked factual foundation because the plaintiff did not provide her own affidavit evidence to support the expert's assumptions about her expectations.

The court emphasized the plaintiff's failure to "lead trump" by not filing direct evidence and found the curb was not a hazard.

The applicant was involved in a single motor vehicle rollover accident.

The insurer denied her claim for income replacement and housekeeping benefits, alleging she made a material misrepresentation by claiming she was the driver when her husband was actually driving.

The insurer relied on an anonymous tip and an accident reconstruction report.

The arbitrator weighed conflicting expert evidence on occupancy dynamics and injury biomechanics.

The arbitrator preferred the applicant's expert, finding his explanation of the applicant's head injury more cogent, and concluded on a balance of probabilities that the applicant was driving the vehicle.

The respondent cyclist was injured when struck by a beer bottle thrown by the driver of a passing pickup truck.

The Arbitrator found the incident was an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, relying on an engineering report that the truck's speed contributed to the bottle's impact.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate revoked the decision, holding that the incident was an assault, not an accident.

The use or operation of the truck was not the direct cause of the impairment, but merely provided a platform and means of escape for the assailant.