Greg Neinstein

The moving parties, comprising various social media companies including Meta, Snap, and TikTok entities, brought motions for leave to appeal the substantive and costs orders of Leiper J. The Divisional Court granted the motions for leave to appeal without costs and directed the parties to provide an agreed schedule for the exchange of appeal materials.

The plaintiff, Toronto District School Board, brought an action in negligence and public nuisance against several major social media corporations, alleging that their products were intentionally designed to be addictive to children and caused widespread mental health and behavioral issues among students.

The Board claimed it suffered direct economic damages in responding to these student harms, including increased costs for mental health services, security, and staff training.

The defendant corporations brought a motion to strike the statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, allowing the Board's novel claims in negligence and public nuisance to proceed.

The applicant, a minor whose parents were involved in a motor vehicle accident, sought statutory accident benefits for a psychoeducational assessment to address alleged psychological injuries resulting from the accident.

The respondent insurer denied the claim.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the assessment was reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant's school performance and behaviour had improved and that the medical evidence did not specifically recommend the assessment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident and remains in a persistent vegetative state, sought funding for occupational therapy and a speech-language therapy assessment.

The respondent denied the treatments as not reasonable and necessary.

Prior to the decision, the respondent agreed to pay for the speech-language assessment.

The Tribunal found that the occupational therapy services were reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant's potential for improvement and the relatively minor cost of the treatment plan.

The applicant was awarded the balance of the occupational therapy services and interest on overdue amounts.

The appellant insurer appealed a decision finding that the respondents were entitled to recover under the Family Protection Coverage (FPC) Endorsement of an automobile insurance policy.

The respondents were injured in a collision caused entirely by an uninsured motorist.

The appellant argued that because it was obliged to pay $1,000,000 under the liability coverage to one of the injured family members (due to the mother's contributory negligence), its maximum liability under the FPC Endorsement to the other family members was zero.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the mother was not jointly liable with the uninsured motorist for the damages suffered by the respondents, and therefore the liability coverage available to her did not reduce the insurer's maximum liability under the FPC Endorsement.

The appellant, a plasterer, was bitten by a mosquito carrying the West Nile virus while working outside and was rendered a paraplegic.

His initial action against the respondent insurer was dismissed on the basis that his injury was not caused by an 'accident' under his group accident insurance policy.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the illness was an unforeseen, unexpected event caused by an external source, and therefore fell within the ordinary definition of an accident.

The third party insurer appealed a decision finding that the plaintiff's action was not barred by the two-year limitation period and that the plaintiff was an insured under the policy as a named driver.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the cause of action against the insurer arises only after judgment against the tortfeasor and a refused demand for payment.

The court also affirmed that the plaintiff was an insured as a named driver.