John Siegel

The plaintiff staked unpatented mining claims on Crown land where the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) planned to build a realigned highway.

The plaintiff subsequently applied for aggregate permits, which were delayed and limited due to the highway construction.

The plaintiff brought an action claiming the MTO expropriated the property and sought compensation for the lost aggregate value.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that an unpatented mining claim is not 'land' under the Expropriations Act.

The court further held that even if it were land, the claims had no value because the plaintiff could not have obtained an aggregate permit for the entire property, and the property was not wrongfully downzoned.

A two-year-old child suffered a catastrophic brain injury after falling from a fifth-floor apartment window with a broken screen.

The jury awarded over $12.9 million in damages, including maximum non-pecuniary damages and future care costs exceeding the plaintiffs' highest suggested scenario.

The landlord appealed the damage awards and several evidentiary rulings, including the admission of subsequent remedial measures and expert witness qualifications.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on liability and damages, finding the jury's awards supported by evidence and the trial judge's evidentiary rulings largely correct or harmless.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding a $350,000 costs premium payable by the landlord, reducing it to $50,000 based on recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, while allowing a cross-appeal to charge the balance of the premium to the child's award.

The insurer brought a motion arguing that the applicant's claim for an increased weekly income benefit rate was time-barred.

The insurer had reduced the applicant's benefits to the minimum rate in July 1994 based on an accountant's report, and the applicant did not apply for mediation until March 1997.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's July 1994 notices, combined with the provision of the accountant's report in November 1994, constituted clear and unequivocal notice of refusal.

The ongoing investigations and communications between the parties' accountants did not constitute a waiver of the limitation period or create an estoppel.

The motion was granted and the applicant's claim regarding the benefit rate was barred.