Justin S. Linden

The court considered a motion for approval of a settlement in a civil action arising from the surreptitious recording and distribution of a nude video of a minor student at school.

The court found the materials filed in support of the settlement insufficient, particularly regarding the impact on the minor plaintiff, the litigation risks, and the rationale for the settlement quantum.

The court directed the parties to provide further and better materials addressing these deficiencies before the settlement could be approved.

This motion sought court approval for a proposed settlement of $45,000 for a minor plaintiff who suffered an ankle fracture during exercise instruction at a gym.

The defendants denied liability, raising issues of causation and damages.

The court approved the settlement, finding it reasonable, fair, and in the minor's best interests, considering the litigation risks and the minor's recovery.

The court also approved the contingency fees and disbursements, noting their role in providing access to justice.

The Estate of Helen Martindale brought a medical malpractice action against two emergency room physicians, Dr. Lee and Dr. Chiu, alleging negligence in their diagnosis and treatment of Helen Martindale's perianal pain, which was later diagnosed as anal cancer requiring an ileostomy.

The plaintiff contended that the doctors breached the standard of care by failing to properly diagnose, investigate, and provide adequate follow-up.

The court found that both Dr. Lee and Dr. Chiu met the applicable standard of care, concluding that their assessments and treatment plans were reasonable given the patient's presentation and the circumstances at a community hospital.

The court also found the plaintiff's evidence unreliable regarding follow-up instructions and determined that no imaging was medically necessary at the time of the initial emergency room visits.

As no breach of the standard of care was found, the issue of causation was not determined, but the court noted that the plaintiff failed to prove that any alleged breach caused the need for an ileostomy.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice action after a relative's death, which the defendants argued was statute-barred under the Trustee Act.

The plaintiffs pleaded fraudulent concealment of CT imaging to toll the limitation period.

The motion judge dismissed the negligence claims, finding no causal connection between the concealed imaging and the failure to sue within the limitation period, but allowed breach of contract and PHIPA claims against the hospital to continue.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs' appeal, holding that the motion judge erred by deciding the factual question of fraudulent concealment as a question of law under Rule 21.01(1)(a).

The Court found the plea of fraudulent concealment was neither patently ridiculous nor manifestly incapable of proof, and that factual disputes regarding causation should not be determined on such a motion.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the plaintiff's action from Brampton to Windsor.

The plaintiff, a self-described problem gambler, sued the defendants for losses sustained at Caesars Windsor.

The court applied a holistic analysis of the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the events occurred in Windsor, the damages were sustained there, the community had an interest, and a trial could be heard much sooner in Windsor, the court concluded that Windsor was a significantly better venue.

The motion to transfer was granted.

The defendants moved to set aside a default judgment, arguing that their former counsel's negligence, including undisclosed Law Society suspensions and failure to attend to the action, led to the default.

The plaintiffs contended the defendants were aware or should have been aware of their lawyer's issues and lacked an arguable defence.

The court applied the Chitel test, finding the motion was brought without delay, the default was adequately explained by counsel's negligence, and the defendants presented an arguable defence regarding the renovation contract.

The court emphasized that clients should not be irrevocably jeopardized by counsel's neglect and that allowing the judgment to stand would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The default judgment and a prior order striking the defence were set aside, and garnished funds were ordered returned as no exceptional circumstances for a freezing order were shown.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for damages arising from a slip and fall on a stairway.

The plaintiff fell while carrying a large basket down the stairs at a home owned by the co-defendant, where the moving defendant frequently stayed.

The court found genuine issues for trial regarding whether the moving defendant was an 'occupier' under the Occupiers' Liability Act and whether she breached a duty of care by instructing the plaintiff to carry the basket downstairs.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

Residents of a Toronto apartment building sought certification of a class action following a fire allegedly caused by negligent maintenance of electrical systems and smart meters.

The proposed class sued the building owner, property managers, superintendent, and the electricity distributor.

The electricity distributor opposed certification, arguing the claim failed to disclose a viable negligence cause of action and that the certification criteria were not met.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed a viable negligence claim against the distributor and that the statutory and regulatory framework governing electricity distribution did not negate the claim at the certification stage.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding with a modified class definition excluding residents operating marijuana grow‑ops in the building.

Following a jury trial arising from a pedestrian–motor vehicle collision and related assault, the plaintiff recovered modest damages totalling $3,720 plus prejudgment interest.

The court considered prejudgment interest under s. 128(3) of the Courts of Justice Act and awarded the amount claimed.

The primary issue concerned costs where the recovery fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

Applying Rules 57.01 and 57.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court declined to deny costs entirely but held that the modest recovery and settlement offers justified a significantly reduced award.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded at a substantially lower level than claimed.