Jay Ralston

The plaintiff was struck by a car while walking home on a highway after a New Year's Eve party.

He sued the driver and later commenced a second action against the OPP and others.

The Crown (HMK) moved for summary judgment, arguing the second action was a nullity for lack of notice under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, and that a third action commenced after proper notice was statute-barred.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the second action as a nullity but dismissed the motion regarding the third action, finding the plaintiff rebutted the presumption of discovery on the date of the accident.

The court also found a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the police owed a private law duty of care to the plaintiff given their knowledge of the party and intoxicated pedestrians on the highway.

The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) brought a motion to intervene in an appeal concerning the enforceability of a settlement agreement where the plaintiff died before executing the release and structured settlement documents.

The respondent Estate supported the intervention, while the appellant insurer opposed it.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the appeal raised broader public law issues and policy concerns regarding personal injury settlements and the Insurance Act, and that OTLA would provide a distinct and useful perspective without causing significant prejudice to the parties.

This appeal concerned proposed class actions against auto insurers for improperly deducting HST from statutory accident benefits (SABs) and against the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) for alleged regulatory failures.

The motion judge had dismissed claims against insurers due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) under s. 280 of the Insurance Act, but allowed claims against FSCO to proceed.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction over SAB disputes and affirming the court's jurisdiction over tort claims against the regulator.

The court also refused leave to appeal the motion judge's costs order, finding it within his discretion.

The applicant sought a declaration of priority over a promissory note assigned to him by 1007937 Ontario Inc., which was also secured by TD Bank and later assigned to the respondent, Mary Eileen Casey.

The court found that the validity of the assignment to the applicant was not sufficiently proven, particularly given that the assignor (1007937 Ontario Inc.) assigned a corporate asset as security for a personal debt of its principal (Mr. Ornsby) while a major creditor (TD Bank, later Ms. Casey) had a prior secured interest.

The application was dismissed without prejudice to the applicant to bring further proceedings to prove the assignment's validity.

During a case conference in a medical negligence action, the court addressed outstanding procedural steps required for trial preparation.

The plaintiffs were ordered to complete all outstanding undertakings by a specified deadline and to deliver their expert reports shortly thereafter.

The court also scheduled a pretrial conference date.

The endorsement reflects routine case management directions to advance the litigation toward trial.