Jeffrey William Strype

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their negligence action against a school board and school officials for failing to protect their child from bullying.

Although the trial judge found that the respondents breached the standard of care by failing to investigate a prior bullying incident and misplacing related documentation, he concluded that none of these breaches caused the subsequent incident in which the child was injured.

The appellants argued that proper investigation of the earlier incident would have prevented the later injury.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's causation analysis and factual findings.

The defendants in a personal injury action brought a motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages for a jury trial, relying on the recently amended Rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that it would cause undue delay and increase costs.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while bifurcation can promote timely justice, the defendants' request was made too late in the litigation process, close to the scheduled trial date.

The court determined that granting the motion would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiffs by effectively adjourning the damages hearing for an estimated two years, outweighing any potential cost savings or efficiencies.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the jury notice in a medical negligence action involving an aeromedical transport.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants' negligence caused a sciatic nerve injury resulting in the amputation of the plaintiff's leg.

The defendants argued the case was too complex for a jury due to the number of experts, conflicting opinions on the standard of care, and pre-existing conditions.

The court dismissed the motion, adopting a 'wait and see' approach, finding that it was premature to strike the jury notice before a trial date was set and the actual contested issues were narrowed.

Following the settlement of a tort action arising from a pedestrian struck by a transit bus, the parties disputed the quantum of costs payable to the plaintiff.

The defendant argued the pretrial judge lacked jurisdiction to fix costs and that costs should only be proportional to the $100,000 tort component of the settlement, excluding the $550,000 statutory accident benefits component.

The court declined to recuse itself, finding jurisdiction to fix costs.

The court held that costs should be assessed on the global $650,000 settlement because the defendant directly benefited from the accident benefits settlement by reducing its tort exposure.

The court fixed partial indemnity fees at $300,000, post-settlement fees at $20,000, and disbursements at $125,000, plus HST.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $5,000.

The plaintiffs brought a negligence claim against the school board, principal, and vice-principal for injuries sustained by the student plaintiff during a schoolyard assault by other students.

The plaintiffs alleged that the school failed to properly supervise the students and investigate prior incidents of bullying, which culminated in an assault that caused permanent tinnitus.

The court found that while the school breached the standard of care in failing to investigate a prior incident and losing an accident report, these breaches did not cause the assault, which was a sudden and unexpected event during a hidden game of tackle football.

The claim was dismissed as the plaintiffs failed to establish cause in fact.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal by defendants seeking to hold litigation lenders liable for costs incurred by a class member (Mr. Zuber) who pursued an exaggerated damages claim and incurred substantial debt from litigation loans.

The trial judge had refused to order the lenders to pay costs, finding they did not instigate or control the litigation in a manner amounting to an abuse of process, despite the onerous interest rates and the loans impeding settlement.

The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, reiterating that non-party costs are limited to "person of straw" or abuse of process scenarios, neither of which applied to the lenders' conduct.

The court also refused leave to cross-appeal the trial judge's decision not to award costs of the motion to the lenders, finding no error in principle.

During a trial, the plaintiffs sought to admit a police report for the truth of its contents, citing the unavailability of the drafting officer and the report's reliability as an independent investigation.

Alternatively, they argued for its admission as a business record under the Evidence Act.

The defendants opposed, raising concerns about hearsay reliability and the report's content.

The court ruled the police report admissible as a business record, but with significant limitations: it was admissible for the officer's personal observations, communications, and understanding of events, and for party admissions against interest.

However, it was explicitly ruled inadmissible for the truth of non-party hearsay statements, opinions, impressions, or histories, particularly where sources were unidentified.

The plaintiffs' request for an unredacted report was also denied due to lack of proper motion and jurisdiction.

In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiffs brought a motion seeking production of the instructing letter and communications between defence counsel and their expert witness.

The plaintiffs argued that a factual assumption the expert was asked to make regarding the onset time of the deceased's chest pain contradicted the defendant doctor's discovery evidence, suggesting improper coaching.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that counsel improperly influenced the expert, and held that litigation privilege continued to protect the communications.

The plaintiff, an elderly pedestrian, was struck by a city bus and sustained injuries.

On the eve of trial, the plaintiff accepted a $25,000 settlement due to her declining health, with costs to be agreed or assessed.

The plaintiff sought over $124,000 in costs, while the defendants argued for $10,000 based on proportionality.

The court fixed costs at $96,780.93 on a partial indemnity basis, finding that the defendants' late admission of liability and the necessity of expert reports justified a costs award exceeding the settlement amount.

This decision addresses a motion by Slavica Pavlovic to stay an application brought by Strype Barristers LLP seeking approval of their fees.

Ms. Pavlovic had also commenced an action against Strype Barristers for professional negligence and breach of contract, and had previously brought her own application challenging the fees, which was stayed by consent.

The court determined that the Strype Barristers' application should not be stayed but rather asserted as a counterclaim in Ms. Pavlovic's action, effectively consolidating the proceedings to avoid multiplicity, inconsistent results, and to promote efficiency.

The court also addressed costs for Ms. Pavlovic's initial, stayed application, ordering her to pay $30,000 to Strype Barristers.

Following a failed motion by the defendants to have their trial costs paid by various litigation loan providers, the loan providers sought their costs of the motion.

The court declined to award costs to the loan providers, finding that the defendants' motion raised a novel issue regarding the enforcement of a costs award against a litigation loan provider and the requirement for court approval of litigation loan agreements.

Given the novelty of the issue, the court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs.

Following a lengthy trial where the plaintiff was awarded $50,000 but the defendants obtained a costs award of over $3.4 million, the defendants moved to recover those costs from four non-party litigation loan providers who had advanced funds to the plaintiff.

The court declined to order costs against the non-parties, finding that while the loans carried exorbitant interest rates, providing them did not amount to an abuse of process under the 'person of straw' test or the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The court also noted that while litigation loans should be approved by the court in class proceedings, the statutory requirement to do so did not exist at the time the loans were made.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the jury due to the suspension of civil jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

After being advised by the court that a non-jury trial could proceed in March 2022 while a jury trial would be scheduled for June 2022, the plaintiff withdrew the motion.

No costs were ordered.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the jury notice in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision, citing delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered the factors for striking a jury notice before trial, including local court resources, the age of the case, and prejudice to the parties.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a just cause or compelling reason to strike the jury notice at this time.

The motion was dismissed, with costs awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice in a motor vehicle accident action, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic would cause significant delay if the matter proceeded before a jury.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide cogent evidence of prejudice or that the delay in the Toronto Region would be significant once the suspension of civil jury trials was lifted.

The court held that justice to the parties would not be better served by striking the jury notice.

The moving party, a class member in a train derailment class action, brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's Order dismissing his appeal for delay and sought an extension of time to perfect the appeal.

The court applied the test for setting aside a dismissal order, noting the moving party had an intention to appeal, provided a reasonable explanation for the delay related to obtaining issued and entered orders, and demonstrated an arguable case on the merits.

The court found that truncating the appeal based on a procedural irregularity would be contrary to the interests of justice.

The motion was granted, the dismissal order was set aside, and an extension of time was granted.

The appellant, a class member in a train derailment class action who had an individual trial for damages, brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his appeal for delay and to extend the time to perfect the appeal.

The court applied the test for setting aside a dismissal for delay, noting that the appellant had a continuous intention to appeal, provided a reasonable explanation for the delay related to difficulties in settling the trial judge's orders, and that the respondents suffered no prejudice.

Crucially, the court found that the appellant had an arguable case on appeal regarding the trial judge's credibility assessments and evidentiary rulings.

The motion was granted, the dismissal was set aside, and the appellant was granted an extension of time to perfect the appeal.

The court determined costs following a 106-day individual assessment trial in a class action where the plaintiff recovered $50,000 after claiming $60,000,000.

The plaintiff sought over $7,000,000 in costs, including nearly $3,000,000 in interest on litigation loans.

The court ruled that interest on litigation loans is not a recoverable disbursement.

Finding that the plaintiff unreasonably rejected multiple offers to settle from the defendants, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs up to the date of the defendants' first offer in 2009, and awarded the defendants their partial indemnity costs thereafter, resulting in a net costs award of over $2.3 million payable by the plaintiff to the defendants.

The court considered motions for approval of a tentative settlement in two tort actions and an order to continue without a litigation guardian, involving a plaintiff who suffered a serious brain injury.

The court found the motion records deficient, specifically regarding the plaintiff's current capacity and the clarity of proposed legal fees and disbursements.

Settlement approval was withheld, and counsel was directed to provide further documentation, including a certified capacity assessment and a detailed affidavit addressing the reasonableness of the contingency fee agreement.