Koke

Legal Aid Ontario brought a motion to re-open the evidence and vary a costs decision that held it liable for 50% of the full indemnity costs awarded against the respondent.

LAO sought to introduce evidence refuting the court's presumptions that it had received an expert report and notice of a Public Guardian and Trustee certificate earlier than it claimed.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the presumptions did not constitute a 'mistake' under Rule 25(19)(b) of the Family Law Rules, that LAO had ample opportunity to address these issues prior to the costs decision, and that the proposed evidence would not have changed the result.

The plaintiff was allegedly injured by propane gas poisoning at a cabin owned by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

An MNR supervisor attended the hospital, spoke to the plaintiff's parents, took notes, and reported the incident.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the action for failure to comply with the strict 10-day written notice requirement under s. 7 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the notice provisions should receive a liberal construction, there is no clear requirement that notice must be in writing, and the supervisor's notes contained sufficient particulars to satisfy the Act.

The plaintiffs, residents of Ontario, were injured in a motor vehicle accident in Michigan when their vehicle was rear-ended by the defendant, a Michigan resident.

The plaintiffs commenced an action in Ontario and the defendant moved to stay the action, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter and was forum non conveniens.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a real and substantial connection to Ontario because the plaintiffs resided and received most of their medical treatment there, and the defendant, living in a border city, could reasonably foresee involvement in an accident with an Ontario resident.

The court also held that Ontario was the more convenient forum given the location of the plaintiffs' medical witnesses and the need to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings regarding their underinsured motorist coverage.