Jacob R.W. Damstra

This is an appeal from a jury trial in a personal injury case arising from a single-vehicle crash.

The plaintiffs (Tuffnail family) were injured, and liability was apportioned among the driver (Meekes), the host (Bolton), the bartender (Coulthard), and the plaintiff (Tuffnail).

Multiple parties appealed the post-verdict rulings.

The Court of Appeal found that Coulthard was "jointly liable" with Meekes for the purposes of OPCF 44R, allowing State Farm to deduct Coulthard's insurance limits, thereby reducing State Farm's payout to the Tuffnails.

The court clarified that State Farm must share subrogation recoveries with the Tuffnails on a pro rata basis until the Tuffnails receive full indemnification under the judgment, correcting the trial judge's order that limited it to the OPCF 44R endorsement.

The court upheld the trial judge's decision on Coulthard's several liability to Bolton, rejecting the argument for reapportionment of fault without Meekes.

The court found the trial judge erred in awarding prejudgment interest higher than the bank rate, reducing it to 1.3% as market rates did not justify a higher rate and the "expectation" factor was inappropriate.

Finally, the court upheld the denial of Coulthard's request to amend pleadings to add a limitation defence post-verdict due to non-compensable prejudice.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision to impute an income of $50,000 to the respondent for purposes of calculating spousal support.

The trial judge had found that the respondent was intentionally underemployed and determined that he was capable of earning between $35-$40 per hour, equivalent to approximately $75,000 annually for at least two-thirds of the year.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error, no legal error, nor any error in principle in the trial judge's determination and dismissed the appeal.

The Municipality of the Northern Bruce Peninsula appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice that had quashed convictions for breaches of the Building Code Act, 1992.

The appeal judge had applied an outdated limitation period under section 36(8) of the BCA, relying on R. v. Pickles, which held that the one-year limitation period ran from the date construction was completed.

However, section 36(8) had been amended on July 1, 2010, to provide that the limitation period commenced from the date the facts first came to the knowledge of an officer or chief building official.

The Court of Appeal found that the prosecution was instituted within one year of the Municipality's initial knowledge of the structure and that the appeal judge had erred in law by applying the wrong limitation period.

The convictions and sentences were reinstated.

This appeal concerns a class action brought by Mr. Submarine Ltd. franchisees against Maple Leaf Foods Inc. following a 2008 listeria contamination outbreak.

The franchisees claimed damages for economic losses arising from reputational harm allegedly caused by their public association with Maple Leaf during the recall.

The motion judge found that Maple Leaf owed a duty of care to the franchisees both in relation to the supply of fit products and regarding representations about product safety.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while Maple Leaf may owe a duty to supply safe products, this duty is owed to end consumers, not franchisees, and does not extend to protecting against reputational harm or pure economic losses.

The court also found that Maple Leaf's undertaking regarding product safety did not encompass protection of the franchisees' reputational interests.

Five patients of Dr. Cathy Frank, an obstetrician and gynecologist, brought separate actions for medical negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The actions were commenced between September 2012 and August 2013, outside the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that the claims were statute-barred.

The motion judge granted the motions, finding that the plaintiffs had not acted with reasonable diligence to discover their claims.

The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the motion judge erred in interpreting the discoverability principle and that a press release issued in November 2011 by counsel for the plaintiffs should have restarted the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, upholding the motion judge's decision.