2 total
Summary judgment granted dismissing nuisance and negligence claims due to plaintiffs' failure to provide expert evidence.
The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motions for summary judgment regarding claims of nuisance, trespass, and negligence arising from the application of biosolids on their farm.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by failing to apply the proper summary judgment principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin.
The plaintiffs had failed to provide expert evidence or sufficient factual evidence to establish the elements of their claims, and the motion judge improperly speculated on what evidence might be available at trial.
The action against the appellants was dismissed.
Leave to appeal denied; limitation period for adding municipalities began when defendant raised road conditions.
The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued the driver of the other vehicle.
After the expiry of the limitation period, the defendant stated at discovery that he lost control on black ice and obtained leave to issue a third party claim against the municipalities for failure to maintain the road.
The plaintiff successfully moved to add the municipalities as defendants based on the discoverability principle.
The municipalities brought a motion for leave to appeal that order.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the clock started to run only when the defendant raised the issue of winter maintenance, and the municipalities failed to meet the test for leave to appeal under rule 62.02(4).
