Joel P. McCoy

The plaintiff alleged she suffered injuries while using a shoulder press machine at a gym and sued the operator for negligence, claiming the machine was defective and not properly maintained.

A jury found that the plaintiff had signed a membership agreement containing waiver provisions and that the defendant took reasonable steps to bring those provisions to her attention.

The trial judge determined the enforceability and scope of the waiver.

The court held that the membership agreement remained in effect through automatic renewal and that the waiver clearly and unambiguously released the defendant from liability for negligence, including claims arising from use of gym equipment.

The waiver was also sufficient to exclude liability under the Occupiers’ Liability Act.

The claim was barred by the waiver.

On a motion to approve settlement of a medical malpractice action involving an apparently incapable plaintiff, the court found the record materially deficient as to the merits, the plaintiff's incapacity, the terms of settlement, counsel's fee arrangements, and the disposition of settlement funds.

The court expressed serious concern about the contingency fee retainer, the unexplained allocation of party-and-party costs within an all-inclusive settlement, and the absence of safeguards for funds payable to an incapable person.

The settlement was approved only on the condition that the net settlement funds, less the OHIP subrogated claim, be paid into court to the credit of the action.

The court also directed a motion for directions on notice to the Public Guardian and Trustee and forwarded the endorsement to the Public Guardian and Trustee and the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their personal injury claim against the Toronto Transit Commission after a slip and fall at a transit station.

The motion judge found no objective evidence of a hazard on the stairs and concluded the TTC met its statutory duty of care as an occupier.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the summary judgment test or his reliance on the uncontradicted evidence regarding the condition of the stairs and the TTC's maintenance practices.

Following the dismissal of a slip and fall negligence action on summary judgment, the defendant sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $21,331.

The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be ordered due to the seriousness of the injuries and the plaintiff’s limited financial means, asserting that bringing a reasonable claim should not attract a costs penalty.

The court held that partial indemnity costs are not punitive and serve broader objectives in civil justice, including indemnifying successful litigants and encouraging settlement.

While acknowledging potential hardship, the court found the defendant was entitled to costs as the successful party.

After modest reductions and consideration of fairness, the court fixed costs at $17,500 inclusive.

The defendant transit authority brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a slip‑and‑fall action arising from a fall on stairs at a subway station.

The plaintiff alleged she slipped on debris on the steps and that the occupier failed to keep the premises reasonably safe under the Occupiers’ Liability Act.

The court held that the plaintiff produced no direct evidence that debris or another hazard existed at the time of the fall, relying instead on speculation and past observations of debris elsewhere in the station.

Evidence showed the stairs were non‑slip tiles in good repair and that the defendant maintained a reasonable inspection and cleaning system.

Applying the summary judgment principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and concluded the plaintiff could not establish a breach of the statutory duty of care.