Jesse Ryan Boyd

The plaintiff, Rose Marie Sprowl, slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot of Bridgeport Plaza in Waterloo, Ontario, suffering a hip fracture.

She alleged that the defendants, as occupiers of the plaza, failed in their duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act to keep the premises reasonably safe.

The court found that the winter maintenance contractor, Clintar, failed to adequately monitor, salt, and inspect the parking spaces, and that the owner, First Capital, failed to ensure the work was properly done.

Both were found liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

The court rejected arguments of contributory negligence and found the defendants 100% responsible for damages.

The defendant Roberts Bros.

Sheet Metal Contractors Ltd. (RBSMC) brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and permit the filing of a statement of defence and crossclaim.

The court declined to sign the requested order because RBSMC failed to comply with Rule 37.12.1(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a notice of non-opposition from all responding parties for an "unopposed" motion to proceed in writing.

The court emphasized that co-defendants are also affected parties, particularly when crossclaims are contemplated, and their formal non-opposition is necessary, unlike the simpler procedure under Rule 19.03(2) which relies solely on plaintiff consent.

The court provided guidance on alternative procedural routes for RBSMC to pursue the motion.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent initially placed the applicant in the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) but later removed him due to psychological injuries.

The respondent denied four physical treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide proper medical and other reasons for denying three of the treatment plans after the applicant was removed from the MIG, making them payable.

The fourth treatment plan was denied as the applicant's accident-related injuries had resolved and ongoing pain was likely due to pre-existing diabetes.

The applicant was also awarded interest on overdue payments.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against his insurer for the theft of a $550,000 heirloom ring and a gold chain while on vacation in the Dominican Republic.

The insurer denied the claim, alleging insufficient proof and lack of cooperation, but expressly declined to plead fraud.

The court found the plaintiff had fully cooperated and proven his loss.

The court granted summary judgment for the value of the ring and chain, and awarded $50,000 in punitive damages due to the insurer's bad faith conduct in stringing the plaintiff along after secretly deciding to deny the claim.

This endorsement concerns the costs of a motion where the defendants were entirely successful.

The defendants sought $3,938.05, but their bill of costs lacked time dockets, preventing the court from assessing potential duplication of effort by two counsel.

The plaintiff proposed paying $2,500.

The court found the plaintiff's proposed amount reasonable given the circumstances and the lack of detailed dockets from the defendants.

The plaintiff sought an order staying a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) application and a declaration that the defendants were estopped from bringing it.

The defendants had pleaded that the action was statute-barred under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, and had initiated a WSIAT Right to Sue Application.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants had attorned to the Superior Court's jurisdiction by consenting to a pre-trial conference date.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the WSIAT has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the right to sue issue and that the defendants had not waived their right to proceed with the WSIAT hearing.

The plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment regarding their Guaranteed Rebuilding Cost Coverage (GRC) endorsement in a homeowner's policy following a fire loss.

The defendant insurer disputed the claim, arguing that the plaintiffs had not commenced rebuilding within the two-year period stipulated by the endorsement.

The court found that the plaintiffs had taken sufficient steps to "begin to repair or rebuild" within the two-year period, or alternatively, within the extended period provided by a Tolling Agreement.

The court also considered and rejected the application of relief from forfeiture under the Insurance Act or Courts of Justice Act as an alternative basis for relief.

The plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was successful, entitling them to GRC coverage.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's discretionary decision regarding the appointment of an umpire for an insurance appraisal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the motion judge's discretion.

The court was satisfied that the appointed umpire was appropriately qualified and found no evidence of bad faith.