Gary L. Petker

The plaintiff suffered catastrophic injuries in a head-on motor vehicle collision on an icy municipal road.

The plaintiff sued the municipalities responsible for winter road maintenance.

The court found that the municipal snow plough operator created the icy conditions by applying a sand/salt mixture that caused a re-freeze, and then failed to return within a reasonable time to treat the resulting ice.

The court held that the Minimum Maintenance Standards did not shield the municipalities because the standards do not cover situations where the municipality creates the hazard.

The municipalities were found fully liable for the agreed damages of $1,912,176.96, with no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

Following the granting of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s nuisance claim, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff argued that the action constituted a public interest test case and sought an order that no costs be awarded.

The court rejected that characterization, finding the litigation primarily advanced the plaintiff’s private economic interests and did not qualify as public interest litigation warranting relief from the usual costs rule.

Applying the partial indemnity principle and considering the parties’ circumstances and prior offer to settle, the court fixed costs payable by the unsuccessful plaintiff.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant $24,767.02 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, plus HST.

The plaintiff, owner of a farm leased for raising rare breeding turkeys, sued the defendant, who purchased a neighbouring farm to build a commercial poultry barn.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's proposed barn would cause an actionable nuisance due to the risk of airborne pathogens, which prompted the plaintiff's tenant to threaten to terminate its lease.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff's operation was abnormally sensitive and that the defendant's proposed use, which complied with all regulatory requirements, did not constitute an unreasonable interference or actionable nuisance.