Hudson Chalmers

The plaintiff, a pizza delivery driver, brought a proposed class action against the franchisor and 141 franchisees alleging misclassification as an independent contractor.

Both the plaintiff and the franchisee defendants appealed the certification judge's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, upholding the finding that the franchisees were not 'common employers' under the Employment Standards Act.

The Court granted the franchisees' appeal in part, finding the motion judge erred in certifying a conspiracy claim among all defendants because the pleadings only alleged the franchisor controlled the agreements, not that the franchisees conspired with each other.

The certification of employment status as a common issue and the negligence claim were upheld.

In a delayed-diagnosis medical malpractice action, the defendant physician appealed findings on liability only.

The court reviewed the trial judge’s negligence and causation analysis and found no reversible error.

The appeal was dismissed and the liability determination stood.

The applicant, West York Sales and Leasing Inc., sought a declaration that it was entitled to a defence under an automobile liability insurance policy issued by the respondent, The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (Travelers Canada).

The dispute centered on whether a specific vehicle was covered by the policy at the time of an accident, given the operation of a monthly reporting fleet endorsement.

The court found that the vehicle was covered, that late reporting did not invalidate coverage, and that any breach of statutory conditions was subject to relief from forfeiture.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant contended she suffered a concussion and chronic pain with functional impairment, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support a concussion diagnosis or chronic pain with functional impairment, noting the family doctor's records primarily indicated whiplash.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limits.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plan for occupational therapy and the claim for interest were dismissed.

The applicants, Greenwin Inc. and Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, sought a declaration that St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company was obligated to fund 50% of an $18.75 million settlement for Greenwin's share of property damages in a subrogated claim by Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC).

The court dismissed the application, finding that St. Paul did not deny coverage or breach its policy, and that the owned property exclusion applied, precluding coverage for damage to TCHC's property.

The court also found that the applicants failed to obtain St. Paul's consent to the settlement, breaching a fundamental term of the insurance contract, and denied relief from forfeiture.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against an emergency room physician following the death of Elisha Shaw.

Ms. Shaw presented to the emergency room with severe abdominal pain radiating to her back, having previously undergone bariatric surgery.

The defendant physician discharged her without a surgical consult, despite her pain remaining unmanaged and a CT scan indicating a possible internal hernia.

Ms. Shaw returned to the hospital the next day, required emergency surgery for an ischemic bowel, and subsequently died.

The court found that the physician breached the standard of care by failing to request an urgent surgical consult and that this negligence caused Ms. Shaw's death, as earlier intervention would have prevented the bowel necrosis.

Damages were awarded to the estate and family members under the Family Law Act.

The defendant requested an adjournment of a fixed trial date at a case conference, citing outstanding production issues including pre-accident medical notes and employment records.

The plaintiffs opposed the adjournment.

The court dismissed the request, noting that discoveries occurred over a year prior and the defendant had ample time to bring production motions.

The court maintained the fixed trial date, emphasizing that such dates are only adjourned in extenuating circumstances, which were not present.

The appellant, Sarfraz Malik, appealed a Superior Court decision that denied his motion to amend his statement of claim to add Family Law Act (FLA) s. 61 claims for losses arising from injuries to his children, more than four years after the accident.

The Superior Court judge had reversed a Master's decision, finding that s. 61 FLA claims constitute a distinct statutory cause of action, subject to the Limitations Act, and not merely a claim for additional damages within an existing negligence action.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court's decision, holding that a s. 61 FLA claim is a separate statutory cause of action that was statute-barred in this case, thereby dismissing the appeal.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary damages following a jury trial in a personal injury action.

The jury awarded general damages but zero for past income loss, future income loss, future housekeeping, and future healthcare costs.

The motion judge, exercising statutory duty to determine the threshold under s. 267.5(5)(b) of the Insurance Act, found that the plaintiff's impairments were not permanent, important, or serious.

The judge considered the jury's implied findings regarding the plaintiff's credibility and the non-permanence of injuries, preferring the defendants' medical expert evidence.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss was dismissed.