4 total
Motion to stay LAT proceedings pending judicial review dismissed as premature.
The appellant moved for a stay of an ongoing Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) proceeding regarding his claim for statutory accident benefits, pending the determination of his application for judicial review.
The underlying judicial review challenged an interlocutory LAT decision denying the appellant's request to convert a written hearing into an oral hearing.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the application for judicial review was premature as the LAT proceedings had not yet concluded, and the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify court intervention at this stage.
Motion to transfer to Simplified Procedure and strike jury notice dismissed due to delay and prejudice.
The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to transfer the action to the Simplified Procedure under Rule 76, amend the Statement of Claim to reduce damages to $200,000, and strike the defendant's jury notice.
The motion was brought after the action had been set down for trial.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial or unexpected change in circumstances to justify granting leave under Rule 48.04(1).
Furthermore, the court held that transferring the action would prejudice the defendant's substantive right to a jury trial, and the matter could not be fairly tried within the five-day limit of the Simplified Procedure.
Extension of time to deliver jury notice granted where delay was inadvertent and caused no prejudice.
The defendant brought a motion for an extension of time to deliver a jury notice after the close of pleadings in an action arising from a denial of travel insurance coverage.
The failure to deliver the notice was due to the inadvertence of the defendant's original counsel.
The court granted the motion, finding that the delay was not unconscionable and that the plaintiff suffered no prejudice, as discoveries are fact-finding and no trial preparation had yet taken place.
The court awarded damages for a dog bite under strict liability, rejecting contributory negligence.
The plaintiff, Natalie Moretto, a 15-year-old at the time, was bitten on the face by the defendant's dog.
The court found the defendant strictly liable under the Dog Owner’s Liability Act.
The defendant failed to prove contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.
The court awarded general damages for physical injury and some psychological sequelae, and future care costs for laser treatments and sunscreen.
However, the claim for loss of competitive advantage was dismissed due to insufficient evidence and the inadmissibility of expert opinion.
