Fawad Siddiqui

The plaintiff was injured while running to board a Toronto Transit Commission bus.

Following a jury trial, the jury found the defendants were not negligent and that the plaintiff's injuries were entirely caused by his own negligence in running to catch the bus and failing to anticipate the doors closing.

The court dismissed the action in accordance with the jury verdict and awarded the successful defendants partial indemnity costs fixed at $66,556.24, reducing the claimed hours to reflect a fair and reasonable amount.

The plaintiff in a personal injury action sought an extension of time and leave to appeal a motion judge's order requiring her to pay the costs charged by third-party record holders to produce relevant documents.

The court granted the extension of time, finding no prejudice to the defendant and that the justice of the case warranted it.

The court also granted leave to appeal, noting conflicting lines of authority on whether a plaintiff or a defendant seeking production must pay for third-party records, and concluded that an appellate decision was desirable to clarify the law.

The plaintiff subcontractor, S&K Construction, registered a construction lien against the owner, NAMF, and the general contractor, Hussain, for unpaid work on a gym renovation project.

The central dispute involved the installation of a defective epoxy gym floor.

The court found that both the general contractor and the subcontractor breached their respective contracts by failing to deliver a floor that was smooth enough for gym use.

As a result, the subcontractor's lien claim for the floor work was dismissed.

The owner's claim for the full cost of a replacement pulastic floor was denied due to betterment, but the owner was awarded the cost of removing the defective epoxy.

The subcontractor was awarded a reduced lien amount for authorized non-floor work, and the general contractor was awarded payment for an HVAC unit.

Following a successful discovery motion compelling the plaintiff to answer outstanding undertakings and pay the costs of obtaining relevant documents, the court addressed disputes regarding the form of the resulting order and the costs of the motion.

The plaintiff argued that certain undertakings, including production of a recent income tax return, should not be included in the order, but the court rejected that position and confirmed the order should reflect the undertakings as set out in the motion materials.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of the motion, while the plaintiff argued the motion was straightforward and that the time claimed by defence counsel was excessive.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considering reasonable expectations of the losing party, the court awarded partial indemnity costs in a reduced amount.

Costs were fixed at $4,800 payable by the plaintiff within 30 days.