Jacob M. Sazio

The appellant, Ontario Place Corporation, appealed a trial judge's decision finding them liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act for injuries sustained by the respondent, Patrick Lyng, on their premises.

The trial judge found Ontario Place 75% liable and the respondent 25% contributorily negligent for a knee injury sustained after jumping down a wet, slippery hill when a pedestrian bridge was closed.

The appeal raised issues regarding the theory of liability, causation, breach of duty under the Act, contributory negligence, and the award for loss of competitive advantage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings on all grounds, including the "train of events" causation and the damages award.

This costs endorsement followed a successful appeal by the appellants (original plaintiffs).

The Court of Appeal had previously allowed their appeal, permitting their entire claim to proceed to trial, and ordered costs of the appeal in their favour.

This endorsement specifically addresses the costs of the motion heard below.

The appellants sought approximately $65,400 in partial indemnity costs for the motion, while the respondents argued for a maximum of $30,000.

The court awarded the appellants $55,000 plus HST for the motion costs, considering the respondents' own bill of costs, the critical importance of the issues raised in the motion (partial summary judgment on core claims and striking a party), and the increased complexity and protraction caused by the motion.

This appeal concerns an insurance dispute following a fire that destroyed a building and valuable accounting records.

The insured submitted claims, some of which were subject to umpire appraisal awards under the Insurance Act.

The insurer refused to pay other claims, including those filed before appraisals and not covered by the appraisal process.

The insured brought an action against the insurer and its adjuster for breach of contract, negligence, and bad faith.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment, dismissing claims related to building and valuable papers losses and striking the claim against the adjuster.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that partial summary judgment was inappropriate due to intertwined issues and the potential for inconsistent findings.

It held that the appraisal process under the Insurance Act is not a "one-shot" valuation and does not preclude further claims for different expenses under the same head of coverage if the awards were expressly confined.

The court also found that the motion judge erred in striking the personal claim against the adjuster, as an employee can be personally liable for tortious conduct even if acting in the course of employment.

The plaintiff, Patrick Lyng, sued Ontario Place Corporation under the Occupiers' Liability Act for a serious knee injury sustained after a concert.

The injury occurred when he fell down a wet, grassy hill after a pedestrian bridge, the shortest route to the Go Station, was closed.

The court found Ontario Place Corporation 75% liable for failing to take reasonable care by not providing adequate warnings or barriers for the known hazardous hill, especially given the wet conditions and the presence of intoxicated patrons.

The plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for jumping down the hill while intoxicated and wearing flip-flops.

The court awarded damages for non-pecuniary loss, past income loss, and future loss of competitive advantage, totaling $131,525.41 before prejudgment interest, reduced by the plaintiff's contributory negligence.

The appellant, Simplicity Air Ltd., appealed a jury award of punitive damages to the respondent, Daniel Eynon, for workplace injuries.

The jury had awarded general damages and lost wages, reduced by 75% for contributory negligence, and $150,000 in punitive damages.

The appeal addressed whether punitive damages were properly left to the jury, errors in instructions, employer liability for employee conduct, and the quantum of the award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's instructions were adequate, the employer was liable for supervisory misconduct, and the punitive damages award was not irrational or inordinately large, especially given the employer's instruction to falsely report the accident.

Paul Boone, a person under disability, and his parents, challenged the constitutionality of Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 5 of O. Reg. 195/04, arguing they compel disclosure of solicitor-client or litigation privileged information, thereby infringing s. 15(1) of the Charter.

The court dismissed both constitutional challenges, finding a lack of factual basis to support the assertions of discriminatory effect and concluding that the impugned provisions do not mandate or inevitably require the disclosure of privileged information.

The motion for approval of a partial settlement was adjourned for the plaintiffs to provide the necessary evidentiary support.