Joseph Alexander Baldanza

The court convened a case conference for four related product liability actions involving fires allegedly caused by defective ventilation units.

After four years of case management, the court discovered that counsel for the defendant had failed to disclose numerous other actions across the province involving the same parties and identical issues, including one that had already proceeded to trial.

Citing counsel's lack of candor and repeated failure to comply with court orders, the case management judge struck the actions from the trial list and declined to continue case managing them.

The plaintiff was injured after slipping on ice on a municipal sidewalk after exiting a bus.

She sued the City of Toronto and the TTC, and later added the City's winter maintenance contractor, Pave-Tar.

Pave-Tar and the TTC brought motions for partial summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them.

Pave-Tar argued the claim against it was statute-barred, while the TTC argued it owed no duty of care.

The court dismissed both motions, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the limitation period and concluding that partial summary judgment was inappropriate due to the intertwined facts and risk of inconsistent findings at trial.

The applicant, a property owner, sought access to youth criminal justice records of seven young persons charged in connection with a house fire that destroyed his property.

The applicant sought the records to support his civil lawsuit against the youth and various organizations.

The youth respondents opposed disclosure.

The court granted partial access to police records and the Crown brief for use solely in the civil proceedings, subject to strict confidentiality conditions and identification by initials only.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident involving a BMW registered to the moving party.

The moving party brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that he was not the owner of the BMW, arguing his identity had been stolen and used to fraudulently register the vehicle and obtain insurance.

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

The court accepted the moving party's evidence that he never purchased, owned, or registered the vehicle, nor applied for insurance, thereby rebutting the presumption of ownership under the Highway Traffic Act.

Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company and Wahaj Ahmed brought a motion to compel Romaiya Ahmed, Shi Shang, and Jian Yang to deliver full and final releases following a settlement agreement to dismiss claims against Wawanesa and Wahaj on a 'without costs' basis.

The court found that the delivery of a full and final release is an implied term of settlement unless otherwise agreed, and no such agreement was made.

The court granted the motion, ordering the delivery of the releases.

The moving party, a third-party subcontractor, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action involved a claim for damages resulting from severed power cables during demolition work.

The moving party argued that a full and final release barred the third-party claim for contribution and indemnity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no conflicting decision and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's conclusion that a trial was required to determine the parties' intentions regarding the release.