Sam Kodsi

The defendant driver brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence claim against him arising from a severe winter motor vehicle collision.

The plaintiffs' vehicle lost control and crossed into the defendant's lane, resulting in a head-on collision.

The motion relied on eyewitness accounts and an expert report suggesting the defendant had no time to react.

The plaintiffs relied on competing expert engineering evidence suggesting the defendant had sufficient time to perceive the hazard and take evasive action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting expert opinions on perception, response time, and evasive maneuvers created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury trial where the jury awarded zero damages, the defendant brought a threshold motion under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function caused by the 2013 accident.

The plaintiff's medical evidence was flawed because his experts were either unaware of or could not parse out the effects of three subsequent motor vehicle accidents.

The defendant's motion was granted and the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss was dismissed.

The defendants, Bryan Watt and Bruce E. Smith Ltd., brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims and all crossclaims against them arising from a three-vehicle collision on the QEW.

The moving parties relied on expert evidence suggesting the defendant driver's reaction time was reasonable.

The plaintiffs relied on competing expert evidence suggesting the accident was avoidable.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting factual evidence and competing expert opinions regarding perception-response time and looming required a full trial to resolve.

The plaintiff sought damages after a fall from an apartment building fire escape, alleging breach of the Occupiers’ Liability Act and the Fire Code due to accumulated snow and ice.

The court held that fire escapes must be kept safe for emergency use and that the occupier’s duty was not negated merely because tenants used the area for smoking, but found the defendants had a reasonable winter maintenance system in place.

The plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that ice on the fire escape caused the fall, particularly given credibility problems, inconsistent accounts of the accident, and photographic and witness evidence inconsistent with the alleged icy condition.

The action was dismissed.

The court nevertheless assessed hypothetical damages totalling substantial non-pecuniary, loss of competitive advantage, future care, and OHIP subrogated amounts.