Gaynor J. Roger

The City of Toronto sought substantial indemnity costs of $75,000 after successfully obtaining summary judgment against the plaintiff, Dimostenis Karpouzis, in an occupier's liability and public nuisance action.

The City argued that Karpouzis's conduct unduly lengthened the proceedings and that he rejected offers to settle.

The court awarded the City partial indemnity costs of $55,000, finding that while Karpouzis's delays were a factor, the City's offers to settle were "strategic bullying" rather than genuine attempts to resolve a serious personal injury claim, and thus did not warrant a punitive costs award on a substantial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff, Dimostenis Karpouzis, sued the City of Toronto for negligence (occupiers' liability) and public nuisance after suffering a serious brain injury while skateboarding at night on an unlighted recreational trail in a city park.

The City moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court granted the City's motion, finding that the City did not act with reckless disregard under the Occupiers' Liability Act, as the risks of using an unlit trail at night were obvious and willingly assumed by the plaintiff.

The public nuisance claim was also dismissed, as keeping a forested park open at night with an unilluminated trail was not found to interfere unreasonably with public health, safety, or convenience.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time to serve the statement of claim on two defendants in a personal injury action arising from a scooter accident.

The plaintiff had mistakenly believed the defendants were properly served within the six-month period.

The court found the delay was adequately explained and that the defendants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice caused by the delay.

The motion to extend the time for service was granted.

The defendant appealed a Master's order allowing an action to continue under Rule 48.14(13) of the Rules of Civil Procedure after delay.

The underlying action alleged negligence and breach of contract by an accountant relating to tax consequences of a U.S. real estate transaction, and involved a significant limitation period issue.

The Master found the plaintiffs provided a satisfactory explanation for post‑litigation delay and that no real prejudice to the defendant had been established despite the death of one plaintiff and the defendant’s health concerns.

On appeal, the court held the Master applied the correct legal principles governing delay and status hearings and committed no palpable or overriding error in assessing explanation and prejudice.

The appeal on the merits and the challenge to the costs decision were both dismissed.

The plaintiffs were required to show cause at a status hearing why their professional negligence action against the defendant accountant should not be dismissed for delay under Rule 48.14(13).

The court applied the conjunctive test from Khan, requiring an acceptable explanation for the delay and no non-compensable prejudice to the defendant.

The court found the delay was adequately explained by the need to gather particulars, the death of a plaintiff, and the defendant's health issues.

Despite the defendant's health and the passage of time, the court found no non-compensable prejudice, noting the case relied heavily on documentary evidence.

The action was allowed to continue, with the condition that the defendant's discovery be conducted via written questions.

The plaintiff moved to reinstate a professional negligence action that was administratively dismissed for delay in 2007.

The parties had previously agreed to hold the action in abeyance pending the outcome of related tax litigation, but a court order only extended the time for service by six months.

The Master found that the delay was adequately explained by the parties' understanding to adjourn the matter sine die, the missed deadline was due to inadvertence, and the defendants suffered no actual prejudice.

The motion to set aside the dismissal was granted.

The appellant municipality appealed a trial judgment awarding damages to the respondent for injuries sustained after slipping on an icy patch in a laneway.

The trial judge found the laneway was used as both a vehicular roadway and a pedestrian passageway, and applied the gross negligence standard applicable to sidewalks.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's approach or his finding of gross negligence, and dismissed the appeal.

The City of Toronto appealed a trial judge's decision regarding liability for a slip and fall in a municipal laneway.

The City argued the trial judge erred in assessing the standard of maintenance, failing to apply the strict notice period for sidewalks under the Municipal Act, and failing to find contributory negligence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of the law, and upheld the trial judge's costs award.

The complainant sought remedies following a finding that the respondent school board discriminated against him by involuntarily transferring him to another school.

The Tribunal awarded $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, noting that the impact of the transfer must be assessed in the context of the complainant's serious misconduct that led to his suspension.

The Tribunal also awarded $398.16 in special damages for transportation costs but denied the claim for private school tuition.

In a remedy decision following a finding of racial discrimination regarding a school transfer, the Tribunal declined to order broad systemic remedies but ordered the school board to develop learning materials based on the case for its equity training.

The Tribunal also ruled that if the complainant wishes to rely on psychological evidence to support his claim for $80,000 in general damages, he must disclose his complete medical records to the respondent.

The Tribunal confirmed it lacks jurisdiction to award legal expenses.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of a decision by the Child and Family Services Review Board that quashed the expulsion of a student for off-school marijuana use.

The Tribunal had found insufficient evidence of a nexus between the student's off-school activities and the school climate.

The Divisional Court exercised its discretion to hear the moot application, determined the standard of review was reasonableness, and upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding it reasonable and correct in its interpretation of the Education Act.

The appellant school board appealed a trial judgment finding an implied agreement to provide reasonable notice of non-renewal for a 20-year transportation contract.

The respondents cross-appealed the finding that they had received overpayments based on the contract's payment formula.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions on the implied term of notice, the calculation of overpayments, and the dismissal of other claims were well-supported by the evidence.