Jonathan de Vries

The defendants, a treating psychologist and a children's aid society, brought motions under Rule 21 to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The plaintiffs' action arose from a child protection investigation and criminal charges based on allegations of abuse made by a child previously adopted by the plaintiffs.

The court struck the claim against the psychologist without leave to amend, finding she owed no duty of care to the parents of her patient and was statutorily obligated to report suspected abuse.

The court also struck the adult plaintiffs' claims in negligence and various intentional torts against the children's aid society defendants, finding no duty of care was owed to the parents during a child protection investigation.

Leave to amend was granted for claims of misfeasance in public office and Charter damages.

The respondent, a 16-year-old driver, drove through a stop sign at 80 km/h on an unfamiliar rural road, lost control on a curve, and crashed into a concrete bridge.

He sued the municipality for non-repair, arguing it should have posted a warning sign for the curve.

The trial judge found the municipality 50% liable, holding that ordinary rural drivers do not always stop at stop signs and the curve was a hidden hazard.

The Court of Appeal allowed the municipality's appeal and dismissed the action, holding that a municipality's statutory duty of repair is limited to ensuring roads are safe for ordinary drivers exercising reasonable care.

The municipality has no duty to keep roads safe for negligent drivers who ignore stop signs.

The plaintiff was severely injured in a single-vehicle rollover accident on a rural gravel road.

She sued the municipality, alleging the accident was caused by the road's poor state of repair, specifically the presence of potholes and loose gravel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the road was in a reasonable state of repair for a rural gravel road and that the potholes did not constitute a state of disrepair.

Furthermore, the court concluded that the accident was caused entirely by the plaintiff's own negligence, including driving at an excessive speed and overcorrecting after encountering an oncoming vehicle.

The court also found that the plaintiff was not wearing her seatbelt, which would have resulted in a 25% reduction in damages for contributory negligence had the municipality been found liable.

The appellant municipality appealed a trial judgment finding it negligent for failing to respond adequately to icy road conditions.

The municipality argued the trial judge erred by not applying a presumption of negligence against the respondent for crossing the centre line.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly identified evidence rebutting the presumption, including the respondent's testimony, evidence of appropriate speed, and expert testimony that the icy road was the sole cause of the accident.

The plaintiff, a 16-year-old driver, was injured in a single-vehicle accident after failing to stop at a stop sign at a rural intersection and crashing into a concrete abutment.

The plaintiff had consumed alcohol prior to the crash.

The plaintiff sued the municipality, alleging the intersection was in a state of non-repair because it lacked warning signs for a change in road alignment (an 'offset' intersection).

The court found that the intersection posed a hidden hazard and required a warning sign in addition to the stop sign.

The court apportioned liability 50% to the municipality for failure to warn and 50% to the plaintiff for failing to stop and driving after consuming alcohol.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident after losing control of her car on an icy patch of a municipal road.

She sued the municipality for negligence, alleging a failure to adequately salt the road.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the municipality had met the standard of care by promptly salting the road, though light blowing snow delayed the salt's effectiveness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of fact were well-supported by the evidence and that the municipality had taken reasonable steps to address the winter road conditions.

The applicant, who was rendered a quadriplegic in a motor vehicle accident, sought a rehabilitation benefit of $204,130 for renovations to a newly purchased home.

The insurer had already paid $279,980, representing the estimated cost of renovating the applicant's existing rented home, which could not be renovated due to the landlord's refusal.

The applicant argued that the new home was now his 'existing home' and that the statutory limit did not apply because the rented home could not be renovated.

The arbitrator held that the rented home was the 'existing home' and that section 15(8) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule limits the benefit for purchasing a new home to the cost of renovations that would have been required for the existing home.

The claim for the additional amount was dismissed.