Robert Shirer

The plaintiff sued the manufacturer and installer of her pool cover after she inadvertently stepped on it, fell, and broke her ankles.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court found no evidence that the defendants breached any standard of care, noting the pool cover met industry standards and featured a clear warning label which the plaintiff had read.

The court concluded the injury was caused entirely by the plaintiff's own inadvertence in stepping on a visible and familiar hazard she knew to avoid.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

During a personal injury trial arising from a fall from an apartment building fire escape, the plaintiff sought to have a neuro‑psychiatrist provide an opinion on the mechanism of the head injury and introduce an animated demonstrative video illustrating a coup‑contrecoup brain injury.

The court ruled that the late‑served expert report failed to comply with Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and would prejudice the defence if admitted during trial.

The court also held that, although the witness was qualified in neuro‑psychiatry, he was not properly qualified to opine on the mechanism of the accident, which was a liability issue better addressed by engineering experts.

The proposed demonstrative video was excluded because it was hypothetical and not grounded in evidence adduced at trial.

The expert was limited to giving evidence within the scope of his earlier reports concerning the plaintiff’s neuro‑psychiatric injuries.

The defendant was charged with operating an unsafe motor vehicle contrary to section 84 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The collision occurred on August 12, 2010, when the defendant's 1996 Chrysler Voyager experienced brake failure on Chemong Road in Peterborough, resulting in a single-vehicle collision with a rock abutment and the death of a passenger.

The Crown proved that the vehicle was in a dangerous or unsafe condition due to multiple mechanical defects including brake system failures, extensive corrosion, and improper maintenance.

The defendant failed to establish due diligence in vehicle maintenance.

The court found the defendant guilty.