Jerome Morse

Following a trial where the defendants were found liable in nuisance and negligence for flooding the plaintiff's lands, the parties disagreed on the calculation of prejudgment interest (PJI).

The plaintiff sought PJI based on the Canadian bank prime rate compounded annually, while the defendant argued for the statutory rate under s. 128 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court exercised its discretion under s. 130 of the Act to award compound interest at the prime rate, finding that the statutory rate would under-compensate the plaintiff and provide an unwarranted financial windfall to the defendants who had avoided maintenance costs for decades.

The plaintiff, National Steel Car Limited, brought an action against the City of Hamilton, ArcelorMittal Dofasco Inc., and the Hamilton Port Authority for damages caused by reoccurring flooding to its property from the Kenilworth Avenue Drainage Channel.

The court found the City and AMD liable in nuisance, negligence, and strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher for failing to maintain the channel and altering its flow, which caused substantial and unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's property.

The action against the Hamilton Port Authority was dismissed.

The court awarded the plaintiff over $5.2 million in compensatory damages, granted a permanent mandatory injunction requiring the City and AMD to remediate and maintain the channel, and awarded punitive damages of $500,000 against AMD and $400,000 against the City.

The parties attended a case conference to address the implementation of a prior order enforcing Letters of Request from a Florida court.

The court clarified that the prior order only applies to examinations conducted in Ontario, not to depositions held in Florida.

The court also ruled that the respondent's Ontario counsel is entitled to review documents generated by keyword searches for relevancy prior to production, provided they produce a log of all hits indicating their relevancy determinations.

The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action sought to adduce opinion evidence from two treating cardiac surgeons as participant experts.

The defendants brought a motion to exclude portions of the proposed evidence of one of the surgeons, arguing it went beyond the scope permitted by Westerhof and that the surgeon lacked impartiality and specific expertise.

The court allowed the motion in part, excluding opinions on the standard of care prior to the surgeon's involvement and on whether earlier surgery would have changed the outcome, as these were not based on his observation or participation.

However, the court permitted the surgeon to opine on matters arising directly from his involvement, holding that concerns about his partiality should go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.

The plaintiff was severely injured in a head-on collision after losing control of her vehicle on a snow-covered and slippery municipal road.

The plaintiffs sued the municipality for negligence in its winter road maintenance.

The court found that the road was in a state of non-repair due to a 'refreeze' of brine, which caused the accident.

The municipality failed to meet its own maintenance quality standards by leaving the road untreated for over three hours during a winter storm.

The court held the municipality liable for the agreed damages of $12 million and found no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

Multiple motions arose from contentious guardianship litigation concerning decision-making for an incapable elderly individual under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The applicants, former co‑guardians of the person, sought reimbursement of substantial legal costs from the guardianship estate for litigation undertaken during disputes over medical treatment and end‑of‑life care.

The respondents opposed the claim and sought their own costs arising from the applicants’ repeated urgent motions and alleged interference with medical decision‑making.

The court found the applicants’ advocacy excessive, confrontational, and largely unsuccessful, providing minimal benefit to the incapable person.

The applicants’ request for indemnification from the estate was dismissed, and they were ordered to indemnify the respondents for significant costs relating to the contentious proceedings.