John Alexander Olah

The plaintiff sued the defendant ski resort for negligence after fracturing his clavicle by colliding with a fluorescent orange mesh ribbon used to close a ski run at night.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no negligence and relying on a signed liability waiver.

The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Using enhanced fact-finding powers, the court determined the obstacle was clearly visible, snow-making equipment was not operating, and the plaintiff failed to keep a proper lookout.

Furthermore, the court held that the liability waiver signed by the plaintiff was prominently displayed, fully enforceable, and provided a complete defence to the claim.

The plaintiffs in two separate personal injury actions appealed interlocutory orders requiring them to undergo examinations by non-medical practitioners (a vocational assessor and a chiropractor).

The plaintiffs argued that section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act constitutes a complete code for such examinations, precluding orders for non-medical practitioners.

The Divisional Court held that section 105 does not completely occupy the field and that a Superior Court judge has inherent jurisdiction to order an examination by a non-medical practitioner where necessary to ensure trial fairness and justice.

Applying this test, the court dismissed the appeal in the Ziebenhaus action, finding the vocational assessment was necessary to meet the plaintiff's case.

However, the court allowed the appeal in the Jack action, finding the defendants failed to demonstrate that the functional abilities evaluation was necessary.

A guest at the appellant's resort drowned in an unattended indoor swimming pool.

A Ministry of Labour inspector ordered the resort to report the death under s. 51(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which requires reporting when a person is killed or critically injured from any cause at a workplace.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Divisional Court upheld the order, finding the pool was a workplace because employees sometimes worked there.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that this interpretation was unreasonable as it would lead to absurd results.

The Court held that s. 51(1) requires a reasonable nexus between the hazard giving rise to the death or injury and a realistic risk to worker safety at the site.

Following jurisdictional motions that resulted in a stay of the action against several foreign defendants, the court determined the appropriate costs payable by the unsuccessful plaintiffs.

The defendants sought substantial partial indemnity costs reflecting extensive counsel time for both preliminary litigation steps and the jurisdictional motions.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized that costs must be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, rather than matching the successful party’s actual expenditures.

The court reduced certain pre‑motion time allocations and adjusted hourly rates but allowed full time claimed for the jurisdictional motions due to their complexity and importance.

Costs were awarded to the moving defendants in specified amounts inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

The moving defendants sought a stay of an Ontario action arising from injuries allegedly sustained during a horseback riding excursion in Jamaica.

The plaintiffs did not attend the motion or file responding materials.

Applying the jurisdictional framework from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court held that the foreign hotel and excursion operators lacked the necessary presumptive connecting factors to Ontario.

Although one defendant carried on business in Ontario, the presumption of jurisdiction was rebutted because the defendant had no involvement in the excursion where the injury occurred.

Alternatively, the court held that Jamaica was clearly the more appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The applicant resort sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding an inspector's order.

The order required the resort to report the drowning of a guest in an unsupervised swimming pool under s. 51(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's findings that 'person' includes non-workers and that the swimming pool was a 'workplace' because workers perform duties there, even if none were present during the incident.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Two organizations, Conservation Ontario and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP), brought motions for leave to intervene in a judicial review concerning the interpretation of the workplace injury reporting requirements under s. 51(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The court granted intervenor status to Conservation Ontario, finding it could provide a broader context regarding the operation of recreational facilities without expanding the record.

The court dismissed the OACP's motion, as it sought to introduce new issues and factual assertions that were not before the original decision-maker.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following the hearing of two appeals.

The Van Breda respondents and the Charron respondents were each awarded costs fixed at $45,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The respondents Hola Sun Holidays Limited and Bel Air Travel Group Ltd. were each awarded costs fixed at $10,000.

No costs were ordered for or against the interveners.

The appellants, out-of-province resort operators, appealed decisions dismissing their motions to stay or dismiss personal injury actions for want of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal convened a five-judge panel to reconsider the Muscutt test for assumed jurisdiction.

The Court modified the Muscutt test by elevating the weight given to Rule 17.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, creating a presumption of a real and substantial connection for most of its subrules.

The Court also collapsed the fairness factors and clarified the distinction between jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens.

Applying the revised test, the Court found a real and substantial connection between Ontario and the appellants in both cases and upheld the motion judges' decisions that Ontario was the appropriate forum.

The young person appellant appealed his convictions for assault and assault causing bodily harm arising from two altercations with another youth on the same day.

The Court of Appeal quashed the simple assault conviction, finding the first incident was a consensual schoolyard scuffle and the resulting head injury was unintended.

The Court upheld the conviction for assault causing bodily harm for the second incident, as the appellant initiated the confrontation and the victim did not consent to fight.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, replacing the suspended sentence with a conditional discharge and one month of probation, noting the appellant's good character and lack of criminal record.

The appellants challenged a trial judgment in a personal injury action, arguing principally that the trial judge erred in admitting CAS records and applied the wrong onus.

The Court of Appeal held that, even if the hearsay objection had merit, the adverse credibility finding was strongly supported by other evidence and no substantial wrong or miscarriage resulted.

The court also rejected the onus argument because the finding that the bus was properly brought to a stop was a complete answer.

The threshold issue did not need to be addressed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs if demanded.