3 total
The plaintiffs' action was dismissed on the basis of res judicata following a prior dismissal in Georgia.
The defendants Xytex Corporation, Xytex Cryo International Inc., Mary Hartley, and Dr. James Todd Spradlin brought a motion to dismiss the action based on res judicata, arguing that the plaintiffs' identical action in Georgia had already been dismissed on the merits.
The plaintiffs opposed, contending the Georgia decision was not on the merits due to a procedural dismissal of their appeal.
The court found that the Georgia Superior Court's dismissal was a decision on the merits, and the subsequent procedural dismissal of the appeal did not negate its finality.
Applying the principles of res judicata, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' action in Ontario, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial and no special circumstances to permit re-litigation.
Threshold motion dismissed; accident found to have converted plaintiff's asymptomatic knee arthritis into symptomatic arthritis.
Following a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff damages for a motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a threshold motion arguing the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory exceptions under the Insurance Act.
The core issue was whether the accident caused the plaintiff's left knee injury, given his preexisting osteoarthritis.
The court preferred the plaintiff's expert evidence that the minor force of the accident converted his asymptomatic arthritis into symptomatic arthritis.
The court found the plaintiff met his burden of proof on causation for the knee injury, which satisfied the threshold requirements.
The defendants' motion was dismissed.
Summary judgment granted; red‑light violation established sole liability for collision.
The moving defendants sought summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision.
The motion judge considered the enhanced summary judgment powers under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and applied the “full appreciation test” articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services v. Flesch.
Evidence included affidavits, cross‑examinations, and a prior guilty plea by one defendant to disobeying a red traffic signal.
The court held that the plea and consistent witness evidence established that the responding driver entered the intersection against a red light and was solely responsible for the collision.
Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial and no real chance of success against the moving defendants, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the action against them.
