Gordon W. Harris

The moving party, Aviva General Insurance Company, sought leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision that found Carrie-Anne Davis suffered an "accident" under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) after slipping on ice near her car.

The Court of Appeal clarified that the `Sault Dock` framework for leave to appeal remains unchanged, despite recent comments in `West Whitby`.

The Court denied leave, finding the dispute largely fact-specific and that Aviva had not presented an arguable case to change the settled SABS "accident" test.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for the pre-trial determination of a question of law regarding whether the defendant tort insurer was entitled to deduct long-term disability settlement funds received by the plaintiff from a separate action against her disability carrier.

The court applied the 'silo' approach and found that the settlement was for an income replacement claim.

The court held that the defendant is entitled to deduct the settlement amount from the tort damages for income loss pursuant to s. 267.8(1) of the Insurance Act.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer the action from Kitchener to London, Ontario, arguing it was in the interests of justice.

The plaintiff opposed the transfer.

The court considered the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the location of the collision, damages, and subject matter favored London, and the convenience of parties and witnesses also leaned towards London, the court found that significant backlogs in criminal cases and judicial complement issues in London would severely delay a civil jury trial.

Upholding the plaintiff's prima facie right to choose venue, the court concluded that the defendant failed to demonstrate that a transfer was desirable in the interests of justice, particularly concerning the timely and expeditious determination of the proceeding.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages arising from a fall at a bus terminal in Montréal, Québec.

The moving defendants (the bus terminal operator and its shareholder) sought to dismiss or stay the action, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter and that Québec was the more appropriate forum.

The court applied the two-stage Van Breda test for jurisdiction.

It found that while a contract for transportation was entered into in Ontario, the connection between this contract (based on alleged implied terms) and the tortious fall in Québec was too weak to establish a real and substantial connection for Ontario to assume jurisdiction simpliciter.

The court emphasized that requiring non-resident commercial operators to litigate claims wherever customers reside, based on implied contractual terms to which they are not privy, would impose an undue burden.

Consequently, the court ruled that jurisdiction simpliciter was not established.

Although not strictly necessary, the court also stated that had jurisdiction been found, Québec would have been clearly the more appropriate forum.

The action was permanently stayed against the moving defendants.

The defendant Ceeps-Barneys Limited, operating as The Ceeps, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury action against it.

The plaintiffs alleged the Ceeps breached its common-law and statutory duties as a commercial host and occupier, following an assault on the plaintiff Kyle Schiavone by co-defendant Brenden Woods outside the establishment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the Ceeps' duty of care, breach, and the foreseeability of harm.

The court also noted that granting partial summary judgment would risk duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings, as the action would proceed against other defendants regardless.