Sam Kodsi

The plaintiff tripped and fell on a city-owned sidewalk, sustaining serious injuries.

She alleged the municipality failed to keep the sidewalk in a reasonable state of repair.

The municipality argued the surface discontinuity did not exceed the two-centimetre threshold requiring repair under the Minimum Maintenance Standards.

Furthermore, the municipality argued its failure to conduct an annual inspection was due to the COVID-19 state of emergency and constituted a core policy decision.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff failed to prove the defect exceeded two centimetres.

In the alternative, the court held the municipality's decision to suspend sidewalk inspections during the pandemic was a core policy decision immune from liability, and the municipality established a statutory defence as it could not reasonably have known of the defect.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from a scooter accident on a municipal road.

The court found that the plaintiff, who was self-represented and did not appear or file materials, failed to establish that the road was in a state of non-repair or that any non-repair caused the accident.

The municipality established statutory defences under the Municipal Act, 2001, including that the pothole was within the minimum maintenance standards.

The action was dismissed and costs awarded to the defendant.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an incident where she was assaulted by her husband while driving, causing her to veer off the road and mount a curb.

The Tribunal found that the incident met the definition of an "accident" under s. 3(1) of the Schedule, as the operation of the vehicle was the dominant feature causing her psychological injuries, which exacerbated pre-existing conditions.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were removed from the Minor Injury Guideline.

However, the applicant's claims for an income replacement benefit, various treatment plans, attendant care benefits, and a special award were dismissed because she failed to provide sufficient medical evidence or establish that the expenses were reasonable, necessary, and incurred.

The Town of Milton brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a negligence claim by the plaintiffs, who alleged catastrophic injuries from a motorcycle accident caused by a pothole.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove non-repair or causation, and that the Town met the minimum maintenance standards for the road.

The motion was not premature despite incomplete discoveries, as the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to pursue discovery.

Costs were awarded to the Town of Milton.

The insurer applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for repayment of income replacement benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits, independent examination costs, and investigation costs, alleging the respondent staged the motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the accident was staged, relying on expert evidence that the vehicle damage was caused by a tow truck stinger rather than a rear-end collision.

The respondent was ordered to repay the income replacement and medical/rehabilitation benefits with interest under section 52 of the Schedule.

However, the adjudicator held that the Schedule does not provide for the repayment of insurer examination or investigation costs, and declined to award them as costs under Rule 19.

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 plaintiffs initiated an action against the City of Toronto, Toronto Port Lands Company, and Toronto Terminal Railway Company following a bicycle accident on a path crossing railway tracks.

The City and Toronto Port Lands Company moved for summary judgment to dismiss the main action, while the Toronto Terminal Railway Company moved for summary judgment to dismiss the City's crossclaim for contribution and indemnity.

The court found that conflicting expert opinions on causation and standard of care presented genuine issues requiring a trial.

Furthermore, the court determined that granting partial summary judgment on the crossclaim would risk inconsistent findings and injustice due to the intertwined nature of the issues.

Both motions for summary judgment were dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders, non-earner benefits, and attendant care benefits.

The arbitrator dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant was malingering.

The arbitrator rejected the applicant's expert evidence due to flawed methodology and inconsistencies, preferring the insurer's expert and surveillance evidence which showed the applicant engaging in normal daily activities.

The arbitrator also found the accident involved minor forces comparable to everyday activities, making the claimed severe impairments implausible.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged rear-end collision.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the incident was staged.

At a preliminary issue hearing, the arbitrator considered evidence from a police officer and an accident reconstruction expert, both of whom testified that the vehicle damage and resting positions were inconsistent with a rear-end collision.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving that an 'accident' occurred within the meaning of section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Following a preliminary issue hearing where the arbitrator found the applicant was not injured in an 'accident' as defined in the Schedule, the insurer sought its expenses.

The arbitrator awarded the insurer its expenses, noting it was entirely successful in the preliminary hearing and the applicant's delay in providing productions necessitated a resumption of the pre-hearing.

The arbitrator reduced the insurer's claimed hours, applying a 3:1 ratio for preparation to hearing time, and disallowed the cost of transcripts.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses fixed at $11,557.90.

The applicants sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims and sought repayment of benefits already paid, arguing the accident was staged.

Relying on uncontradicted expert accident reconstruction evidence which showed the physical damage was inconsistent with the drivers' accounts, the arbitrator found the accident was staged and fraudulent.

The applications were dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to repay the benefits received and pay the insurer's arbitration expenses.

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 applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an incident where he alleged a tractor-trailer backed into his vehicle.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing no collision occurred, relying on dash-cam video gaps and an accident reconstruction expert.

The arbitrator held a preliminary issue hearing to determine if the incident met the definition of an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule.

Applying the purpose and causation tests, the arbitrator found that self-reporting collision reports from both drivers confirmed contact between the vehicles.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant was involved in an accident and deferred the issue of expenses to the main hearing.

The applicants claimed statutory accident benefits following a reported hit-and-run motor vehicle collision.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicants were not involved in an 'accident' as defined in the Schedule and putting them to strict proof that the collision occurred as reported.

Following a preliminary issue hearing, the arbitrator found the applicants' evidence credible and corroborated by circumstantial evidence, while finding the insurer's accident reconstruction evidence unpersuasive.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicants were involved in an accidental collision and were therefore involved in an 'accident' under subsection 2(1) of the Schedule.

The defendant was convicted of Operation Over 80 following a collision with a motorcyclist at Highway 401 and Kennedy Road in Scarborough.

The victim suffered catastrophic injuries including brain damage, vision impairment, and ongoing physical and psychological trauma.

The court found the defendant's impaired driving contributed to the collision despite the Crown proceeding on a lesser charge that excluded causation.

The defendant was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment served intermittently on weekends, with 12 months probation and no enhanced driving prohibition.

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.

The accused was charged with Operation Impaired and Operation Over 80 following a motor vehicle collision at Highway 401 and Kennedy Road in Scarborough.

The Crown alleged the accused struck and seriously injured a civilian while his blood alcohol concentration was over the legal limit.

The accused raised multiple Charter issues including claims regarding statutorily compelled statements, detention and timely access to counsel, language comprehension difficulties, and lost evidence.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts after addressing the Charter applications and determining that the breath test evidence was admissible.

The applicants sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle collision where their minivan struck a Honda Civic making a left turn.

The insurer denied the claims, alleging the collision was a deliberate, staged accident orchestrated with the help of an unidentified third vehicle.

The arbitrator found the insurer's witnesses to be inconsistent and unreliable, and preferred the applicants' straightforward evidence that the collision was a genuine left-turn accident.

The arbitrator concluded the incident was an 'accident' within the meaning of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, allowing the applicants to proceed with their arbitration applications.

The insurer sought repayment of $14,557.94 in accident benefits and its expenses following an arbitration where the applicant failed to prove he was involved in a motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for repayment, finding the insurer failed to prove the applicant wilfully misrepresented material facts or that the amounts claimed were actually benefits paid to the applicant.

However, as the insurer was completely successful in the preliminary issue hearing, the arbitrator awarded the insurer its arbitration expenses, fixed at $7,000.00 inclusive of disbursements for its accident reconstruction experts.