Jeremy Solomon

The court dismissed the applicant's motion to strike the respondent's pleadings and for other relief, finding such an order would be disproportionate given the circumstances.

While there was imperfect and late compliance with court orders, new counsel had recently produced substantial disclosure, and most outstanding disclosure was sufficiently explained.

The court ordered costs of $3,000 payable by the respondent to the applicant and made procedural orders to streamline the matter toward resolution or trial.

TD General Insurance Company (TD) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims for punitive and aggravated damages by the plaintiffs, Mergim Imeri et al.

The claims arose from TD's initial handling of statutory accident benefits (SABS) following a motor vehicle accident, before Aviva Canada Inc. was determined to be the appropriate insurer.

TD argued that the plaintiffs failed to mediate these damages as a precondition and that their settlement of the SABS claim with Aviva precluded an independent action against TD.

The court dismissed the mediation argument due to TD's failure to plead it as a condition precedent in a timely manner.

However, the court granted summary judgment on the second ground, holding that the plaintiffs' settlement of their SABS claim with Aviva, which included a full and final release, resolved the underlying entitlement to benefits.

Since the claim for punitive and aggravated damages against TD flowed directly from the alleged wrongful denial of benefits, and that underlying issue was settled, there was no longer a basis for the claim against TD.

The claim against TD was dismissed.

This trial decision addresses parenting and child support for a four-year-old child born from a brief, high-conflict relationship.

The Mother sought primary decision-making and residence, while the Father sought equal shared parenting and a parallel parenting regime.

The court dismissed the Father's allegations of sexual assault against the Mother due to insufficient evidence.

The court determined that the child's primary residence would remain with the Mother, citing the child's stable environment and the impracticality of the Father's proposed school arrangements.

Decision-making was split, with the Mother having final say on health and education, and the Father on extracurricular activities, both requiring consultation.

The Father's parenting time was gradually increased, and child support was ordered based on the Father's income and imputed income for the Mother.

A provincial court judge presiding over a lengthy trial involving charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a stage collapse at a Radiohead concert in Toronto was appointed to the Superior Court of Justice mid-trial.

The Crown argued the judge retained jurisdiction to complete the trial under the Provincial Offences Act, while the defence argued the appointment resulted in loss of jurisdiction.

The court found that the judge had lost jurisdiction to continue the trial, as the Provincial Offences Act lacks a provision comparable to section 669.3 of the Criminal Code permitting continuing jurisdiction upon appointment to another court.

A new trial was ordered.

Defendants charged with offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act brought applications alleging violations of their Charter right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The court applied the new framework established in R. v. Jordan, determining that while the net delay of approximately 44 months exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for Ontario Court of Justice trials, the Crown established exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.

The court found the case was particularly complex due to the nature of the evidence and issues involved, and that the transitional exceptional circumstance applied to cases in the system when Jordan was released.

The applications were dismissed.

This is a trial decision on a voir dire regarding the admissibility of expert evidence in a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a stage collapse at a concert venue that resulted in a fatality.

The defendant Live Nation Canada Inc. challenged the qualification of two Ministry of Labour engineers to provide expert opinion evidence on the cause of the stage collapse.

The court found that both experts met the threshold requirement to testify, applying the test established in White Burgess v. Abbott and Haliburton Co. The court rejected arguments that the experts' involvement in the investigation, their employment relationship with the Ministry of Labour, and their participation in interviews with defendants undermined their independence and impartiality.

During a personal injury trial arising from a fall from an apartment building fire escape, the plaintiff sought to have a neuro‑psychiatrist provide an opinion on the mechanism of the head injury and introduce an animated demonstrative video illustrating a coup‑contrecoup brain injury.

The court ruled that the late‑served expert report failed to comply with Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and would prejudice the defence if admitted during trial.

The court also held that, although the witness was qualified in neuro‑psychiatry, he was not properly qualified to opine on the mechanism of the accident, which was a liability issue better addressed by engineering experts.

The proposed demonstrative video was excluded because it was hypothetical and not grounded in evidence adduced at trial.

The expert was limited to giving evidence within the scope of his earlier reports concerning the plaintiff’s neuro‑psychiatric injuries.

Following a jury verdict in a statutory accident benefits action, the court determined post‑trial issues concerning transportation expense deductibles, interest on overdue benefits, and costs.

The insurer argued that the statutory 50‑kilometre deductible applied to transportation expenses and sought to call additional evidence, but the court refused and held the deductible did not apply because the insurer had waived it and the insured was unable to drive during the relevant period.

On the issue of interest under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, the court applied appellate authority holding that interest on overdue benefits runs from the date the benefit first became overdue, even if the insurer did not know the correct amount at the time.

The court also considered competing offers to settle and concluded that the plaintiff was the successful party overall.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis.