Jason Arcuri

The third party grandmother moved for summary judgment to dismiss the defendants' claim that her negligence contributed to her grandson's injury from the defendants' dog.

The child was injured while walking with his grandmother in the neighbourhood.

The court found that even accepting the dog owner's version of events, the grandmother was not negligent as it was reasonable for her to rely on the owner's control of the dog.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the third party claim was dismissed.

The plaintiff commenced a professional negligence action in Small Claims Court.

The deputy judge dismissed the claim under r. 12.02 for failure to produce formal expert reports.

The Divisional Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal, finding the dismissal was a denial of natural justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants' appeal, holding that under Westerhof v. Gee Estate, treating physicians can provide expert opinion evidence without formal reports, and this principle applies equally to Small Claims Court proceedings to ensure accessible justice.

The appellant appealed an order granting summary judgment dismissing its claim against the respondent.

The appellant alleged that the respondent was liable for a fraud perpetrated by his son because they had previously been in business together and the son used a bank account associated with that business.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the respondent had any knowledge of or participated in the alleged fraud, and agreeing with the motion judge that the case put against the respondent was entirely speculative.

On a Small Claims Court appeal, the appellant challenged the pre-trial dismissal of a $25,000 medical negligence claim arising from alleged negligent treatment causing loss of vision in one eye.

The appeal judge held that the deputy judge improperly treated a Rule 12.02 motion as a summary judgment motion and erred in dismissing the claim based on the appellant's failure to produce expert reports within timelines set at settlement conferences.

The court found the pleading itself was not inflammatory, a waste of time, a nuisance, or an abuse of process, and that dismissal on this basis denied natural justice.

The appeal was granted and the matter remitted to Small Claims Court for a hearing.

During a personal injury trial arising from a golf cart accident, the court was asked to determine whether a severance package received by the plaintiff after his termination should be deducted from any damages awarded for loss of income.

The plaintiff argued the severance fell under the private insurance exception to the rule against double recovery.

The court agreed, finding that the severance package was obtained in exchange for the plaintiff giving up his rights as a long-term employee, and was not merely a continuation of salary.

Therefore, no deduction for the severance allowance would be made from any jury award for past or future loss of income.

The appellant company's operations manager and vice-president was severely injured in a workplace accident.

The company had previously opted to remove its executive officers from workers' compensation coverage to save money, purchasing private disability insurance instead.

After the injured officer sued the company and settled for $950,000, the company sought indemnification from its commercial general liability insurer.

The insurer denied coverage based on an 'employee injury exclusion' clause.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the injured officer was an employee at the time of the accident and that the exclusion clause unambiguously applied to all employees, including executive officers, thereby precluding coverage.

Following a trial in which the plaintiff’s claim and related cross-claims were dismissed, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed the reasonableness of the successful defendant’s bill of costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court scrutinized preparation time, trial attendance, and written submissions, reducing several claimed amounts and rejecting certain disbursements including unexplained agency fees, meal expenses, legal research charges lacking detail, and stationery costs treated as overhead.

The court fixed reduced amounts for several litigation stages and limited disbursements.

Counsel were directed to calculate the final payable costs based on the court’s determinations.