Florence Wai Man Chiu

The court dismissed a motion to strike the jury notice following closing arguments in a negligence trial arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs objected to 19 statements made by defence counsel in his closing address, alleging they were inflammatory, invited improper reasoning, misstated the law, and appealed to emotion.

The court found some statements objectionable but determined that corrective jury instructions were sufficient to remedy any prejudice, making discharge of the jury unnecessary.

The jury subsequently found the defendants liable in negligence, apportioning liability at 93% to one defendant and 7% to the other.

Three consolidated civil actions arose from a motor vehicle accident on April 22, 2016, near Stouffville, Ontario, involving three vehicles.

The defendant Rae argued he owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs.

The court ruled on the duty of care issue at the close of the plaintiffs' case, finding that Rae owed a duty of care to all plaintiffs as a driver to other users of the roadway.

The court applied established jurisprudence recognizing the duty of care owed by drivers to other road users and rejected Rae's arguments based on the distinction between nonfeasance and misfeasance, finding that driving is a heavily regulated activity and that the duty of care exists regardless of whether specific statutory obligations apply to the particular conduct alleged.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal denying him Income Replacement Benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable question of law.

The court held that the adjudicator's findings of fact were supported by the evidence, the correct 'but for' test for causation was applied, and there was no lack of procedural fairness during the hearing.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent insurer.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce a settlement or dismiss the action, arguing the plaintiff's counsel had accepted a without-costs dismissal offer.

The plaintiff's counsel raised issues regarding the terms of the offer and whether acceptance occurred.

The court noted there appeared to be no issue regarding ostensible authority, encouraged the plaintiff's counsel to seek instructions, and set a timetable for the motion if the matter did not settle.

The insurer moved for summary judgment dismissing the accident benefits claim on the basis that the claimant's impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guidelines under the statutory accident benefits regime.

The court held that the responding party failed to put forward admissible evidence showing chronic pain, psychological impairment, or any injury taking the claim outside predominantly minor sprains and strains.

Applying the summary judgment framework, the court found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the record was sufficient for final disposition.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action against the insurer, with costs fixed at $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.