Jason Frederick Katz

The applicant sought payment for psychological and physiotherapy treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The claim for psychological services was denied as the applicant provided no evidence or submissions.

The claim for physiotherapy was denied because the adjudicator accepted the respondent's medical evidence that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and resumed pre-accident sporting activities, finding the proposed treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

This costs endorsement addresses the appropriate scale and quantum of costs following a jury trial in a fatal motor vehicle accident case.

The court reviews the application of the Victims’ Bill of Rights, the reasonableness of the costs claimed, the effect of contingency fee agreements, and the impact of offers to settle.

Substantial indemnity costs are awarded throughout, reduced by 5% for contributory negligence, resulting in a total award of $490,368.86 to the plaintiffs.

This motion concerned the approval of a proposed settlement affecting a minor plaintiff, brought pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court assessed whether the settlement was fair and reasonable, if the legal fees and disbursements were fair and reasonable, and if the requirements of Rule 7.08 had been complied with.

The court found the settlement and the requested fees and disbursements to be reasonable and in the best interests of the minor plaintiff, approving the settlement.

The appellant City of Toronto appealed a trial judgment finding it liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act for injuries sustained by the respondent when a glass door shattered at a community centre.

The trial judge found the City breached its duty of care because the door was made of annealed glass rather than the safety glass required by the Ontario Building Code.

On appeal, the City argued the trial judge improperly applied a strict liability standard rather than assessing whether the City took reasonable care to install the correct glass.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly decided the case based on the theories and issues expressly advanced by the parties at trial.

Stephanie Becker, a 14-year-old, was severely injured by shattering glass at a community centre.

She sued the City of Toronto for negligence under the Occupiers’ Liability Act, alleging the glass in an office door was annealed glass, not the required tempered safety glass.

The court found the City breached its duty of care by installing annealed glass, which did not meet minimum building code standards.

The injury was found to be caused by this breach and was reasonably foreseeable given the public nature of the centre and minimal supervision.

Damages were settled, and the case proceeded on liability.

The plaintiff suffered injuries at a pub when another patron, allegedly intoxicated, fell on him.

The plaintiff sued the pub operators and the landlord, 2320152 Ontario Inc. The landlord brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing it was not an 'occupier' under the Occupiers’ Liability Act.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the landlord, operating under a 'completely carefree net lease' with limited involvement in the pub's operation, did not meet the definition of an occupier.

The action against the landlord was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of a motion for summary judgment brought by the defendants, Joe Avila and Sonia Avila (the "Hosts").

The plaintiff, Luis Avila, successfully opposed the summary judgment motion and sought costs of $25,000.00.

The defendants argued for no costs or a reduced amount of $10,500.00, citing the reusability of work for the continuing trial against the third defendant, Rui Couto.

The court, applying principles from the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $12,500.00 plus disbursements of $1,341.95, acknowledging some efficiencies for trial but rejecting the argument to defer all costs.

The defendants Joe Avila and Sonia Avila (the "Hosts") brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff Luis Avila's claim against them.

The claim alleged social host liability for injuries Luis Avila sustained during a physical interaction with another guest, Rui Couto, at a birthday party hosted by the Avilas.

The court found genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the foreseeability of harm, Couto's intoxication and behaviour, and the Hosts' awareness, which involved credibility determinations.

Given that the action would continue against Couto, granting partial summary judgment against the Hosts carried a risk of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent factual findings, which was deemed not to be in the interests of justice.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant, a minor at the time of the motor vehicle accident, applied for non-earner benefits.

The insurer denied the claim and later argued the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding to arbitration because the limitation period had expired, asserting that the applicant's mother acted as a litigation guardian.

The arbitrator found that a parent acting as a representative or substitute decision-maker is not a litigation guardian under the Limitations Act, 2002, and therefore the limitation period did not begin to run until the applicant reached the age of majority.

The arbitrator also found that although the applicant did not file a Disability Certificate that met the criterion for non-earner benefits, she had provided sufficient information to establish a potential claim, allowing the application to proceed to arbitration.