Katharine A. Book

The plaintiff sued the municipality for negligence after tripping and falling in a pothole on a residential road.

The parties agreed on damages of $100,000, leaving liability as the sole issue.

The court applied the four-step test for municipal non-repair under the Municipal Act.

The action was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to provide reliable evidence of the pothole's dimensions, thereby failing to prove that the road was in a state of non-repair that posed an unreasonable risk of harm.

The court noted that had liability been found, the plaintiff would have been 15 percent contributorily negligent for failing to pay reasonable attention to the roadway surface.

This appeal concerned a jury award for damages in a motor vehicle accident case, specifically challenging the trial judge's directions on causation and the admissibility of evidence.

The appellant argued that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the "but for" test for causation by using "material contribution" language and improperly excluded a Statistics Canada report and curtailed re-examination of an expert.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury, despite the "material contribution" language, would have properly understood the "but for" test.

The court also upheld the exclusion of the Statistics Canada report due to lack of authentication and reliance by the expert, and found no reversible error in the re-examination ruling.

Furthermore, the court affirmed that hypothetical past income loss is to be proven on a "real and substantial possibility" standard, not on a balance of probabilities.

Joshua West, a plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident case, sought substantial indemnity costs following a jury verdict awarding him $710,000 in damages.

The defendant, Robin West, opposed the amount and sought costs against the co-plaintiff, Robert West, whose claim was dismissed at trial.

The court, applying factors under Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, reduced Joshua West's requested fees, finding that two senior counsel were not required and substantial indemnity applied only from the date of his Rule 49 offer.

The court also allocated a portion of preparation time to Robert West's dismissed claim.

Ultimately, Joshua West was awarded $225,000 in fees plus $67,554.49 in net disbursements, while Robert West was ordered to pay the defendant $10,000 in costs.

No costs were awarded for a mixed-result motion regarding calling Robin West as a witness.

The plaintiff suffered a severe traumatic brain injury in a motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury trial that apportioned liability between the defendants, this trial assessed the plaintiffs' damages.

The court awarded the primary plaintiff $275,000 in general damages, finding he sustained permanent cognitive and behavioural impairments but achieved moderate functional independence through extensive rehabilitation.

The court also awarded significant damages for future loss of income, future medical and rehabilitation expenses, and attendant care, while deducting collateral benefits received.

Additional awards were made for a 5% management fee and Family Law Act claims for the plaintiff's mother, sister, and daughters, including compensation for the sister's extensive caregiver services.

The minor plaintiff was injured when struck by a tow truck near the proposed defendants' home.

The minor's father was appointed litigation guardian and sued the tow truck owner and driver, who counterclaimed for negligent supervision and third-partied the homeowners.

After the limitation period expired, the plaintiffs moved to add the homeowners as defendants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the father knew the material facts on the day of the accident, and held that a litigation guardian's potential conflict of interest does not suspend the running of the limitation period.

The appellant dentist appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $21,687.49 for dental negligence.

The respondent suffered permanent damage to her lip implants during a wisdom tooth extraction.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellant breached the standard of care by failing to inform himself on how to handle the implants and breached his duty of informed consent by failing to disclose the material risks of the procedure to the implants.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion at the start of trial to strike the jury notice served by the defendant, arguing the issues surrounding the plaintiff's severe brain injury were too complex for a jury.

The defendant opposed the motion or alternatively sought bifurcation.

The court found the scientific evidence and damages calculations related to the brain injury were unduly complex and better suited for a judge alone.

However, the court determined the liability issues were straightforward enough for a jury.

The motion was allowed in part, and the trial was bifurcated with liability to be tried by a jury and damages by a judge alone.

The appellant challenged a jury verdict in a motor vehicle personal injury action, arguing that the trial judge's charge inadequately corrected improper closing submissions on non-pecuniary damages and that the $200,000 award for pain and suffering was inordinately high.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge expressly instructed the jury not to use a mathematical extrapolation approach and provided adequate guidance on assessing general damages.

Applying the deferential standard for appellate review of jury awards, the court found no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice and concluded the award was not so plainly unreasonable and unjust as to warrant intervention.

The appeal was dismissed with fixed costs to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a judgment finding her liable for the outstanding balance of her former law firm's accounts for services rendered in matrimonial litigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the accounts.

The trial judge properly considered relevant factors, including the nature of the services, time expended, and the appellant's ability to pay, and correctly noted that the appellant had acquiesced to the fees by making partial payments without complaint for many months.