Frank Kolenko

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to amend her statement of claim to limit damages to $200,000 and to strike the jury notice, thereby transferring the action to the Simplified Procedure track under Rule 76.

The defendants opposed, citing delay and potential prejudice.

The court granted leave, finding a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances due to the increased monetary threshold for Simplified Procedure and the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on jury trials.

The court further found that striking the jury notice and proceeding under Simplified Procedure was in the best interests of justice, promoting proportionality, accessibility, and expeditious resolution, without causing functional disadvantage to the defendants.

The plaintiff, Derek Martin, sued the Attorney General of Ontario, Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation, CBRE Limited, and Bee-Clean Building Maintenance for damages after slipping and falling in the John Sopinka Court House.

Martin alleged breach of the standard of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act and/or negligence.

The parties agreed on damages but disputed liability and contributory negligence.

The court found that the defendants had implemented a reasonable system of inspection and cleaning, including regular patrols, mat placement, and wet floor signs, and that the small water spill was imperceptible.

Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's action, concluding the defendants met the requisite standard of care.

Although not strictly necessary given the liability finding, the court also assessed contributory negligence, finding Martin 30% at fault for wearing shoes with significantly worn soles.

The defendant estate moved for summary judgment in a motor vehicle accident claim, arguing that the deceased owner could not have been driving the offending vehicle and had not consented to anyone else possessing it.

The plaintiff's insurer opposed the motion, presenting hearsay evidence that the owner's son had previously driven the car and may have had implied consent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a trial was necessary to assess the credibility of witnesses and determine whether the driver had possession of the vehicle with the owner's consent.

The defendant employer brought a motion in a wrongful dismissal action seeking to change the place of trial from Kitchener, selected by the plaintiff in the statement of claim, to either Walkerton or Owen Sound.

The court reviewed Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the presumption favouring the plaintiff’s chosen venue unless a clear advantage or interests of justice justify transfer.

Although the underlying events occurred in Owen Sound and the defendant’s witnesses resided there, the court found the witnesses could travel to Kitchener without significant inconvenience and the matter could be scheduled there promptly.

The defendant failed to demonstrate that the proposed venue was clearly more advantageous or necessary for a fair and efficient trial.

The motion to change the place of trial was therefore dismissed.