John Lea

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his personal injury action, which was found to be statute-barred due to the two-year limitation period.

The motion judge concluded that the appellant's injuries were discoverable well within the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's application of discoverability principles under the Limitations Act and the threshold for serious and permanent impairment under the Insurance Act.

The Court clarified that formal medical opinions required for a threshold motion are not necessary to trigger the limitation period.

The applicants purchased a boat from the respondent, Roman Korytski, which was later discovered to be stolen.

The respondent Aviva Canada Inc. claimed ownership by right of salvage.

The applicants sought compensation from Korytski for breach of contract (nemo dat principle) and reimbursement of expenses from Aviva for the boat's upkeep.

The court found Korytski liable for the original purchase price of $33,200, rejecting the claim for current market value due to lack of expert evidence.

The claim against Aviva for expenses was dismissed, as the applicants had possession and use of the boat during the period the expenses were incurred.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in an unprovoked assault at a banquet facility.

Three defendants were noted in default.

Following an assessment of damages hearing, the court awarded the plaintiff $125,000 for pain and suffering, $25,000 for future treatment, $2,296.87 for an OHIP subrogated claim, and $50,000 for loss of competitive advantage, totaling $202,296.87.

The court also awarded costs of $67,390.82 against the defaulting defendants.

The City of Kawartha Lakes appealed a Master's order compelling its solicitor to answer questions and produce documents on cross-examination regarding an affidavit she swore.

The Master found that the City had waived solicitor-client and settlement privilege by voluntarily disclosing detailed narratives of its conduct, legal advice, and settlement negotiations in the affidavit.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Master's findings that the information was relevant and that the privileges had been waived.

The court also confirmed that section 239 of the Municipal Act does not create a new 'closed session' privilege.

The defendants in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident brought a motion for a further defence medical examination by a psychiatrist.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing the defendants had already received numerous psychological reports and a further examination would delay the trial.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff's recent treatment at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and a new diagnosis of major depressive disorder constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court ordered the plaintiff to attend the psychiatric assessment, noting there was little prospect the trial would be called before the assessment could be completed.

Following a successful motion compelling the plaintiff to attend a second defence psychiatric examination under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Courts of Justice Act, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving parties sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $11,000, while the responding party proposed a substantially lower amount.

Applying the proportionality principle and the factors in Rule 57.01, the court held that the moving parties were entitled to costs but that the time claimed for preparation was excessive.

The court fixed costs in a reduced lump sum amount as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident where liability was admitted, the defendants moved for an order compelling the plaintiff to attend a second defence psychiatric examination under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing the defendants had already conducted an examination years earlier.

The court applied the factors from Bonello v. Taylor and found that trial fairness warranted a further examination, particularly given that the original defence report would be more than five years old at trial, new expert reports had been served by the plaintiff, and evidence suggested the plaintiff’s psychological condition may have deteriorated.

The court concluded that a current psychiatric assessment was necessary to permit the defence to fairly respond to the plaintiff’s expert evidence and to assist the trier of fact.

The motion was granted and the plaintiff was ordered to attend the psychiatric examination.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a proposed class action arising from explosions at a propane facility in Toronto that allegedly caused personal injury, property damage, and evacuation of nearby residents.

The court considered the certification requirements under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

It held that the pleadings against certain landlord defendants failed to disclose a viable cause of action because the allegations relying on agency, single‑group enterprise, and alter‑ego theories lacked material facts capable of piercing the corporate veil.

Those pleadings were struck with leave to amend and the certification motion against those defendants was adjourned.

The proceeding was otherwise certified as a class action against the remaining defendants, with common issues approved and representative plaintiffs appointed.