Laleh Hedayati

A residential tenant sued his landlord and pest control contractor for $600,000 in general, aggravated, and punitive damages arising from a bedbug infestation and alleged negligent application of insecticide.

The tenant also claimed $6,000 for an alleged unlawful security deposit and $7,170.01 for hotel stays and cleaning services.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action on the basis that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction, as the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) for claims under $35,000.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the tenant's maximum recoverable damages could not exceed the LTB's monetary jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, Sema Cetin, brought a motion to lift a stay of proceedings in her professional negligence action against her former lawyers, Thomas Percival, Jason Lam, and Krylov and Company.

The stay was initially granted by consent, pending the 'outcome of the trial' of a related motor vehicle action.

The motor vehicle action subsequently settled, leading the defendants to argue the stay was permanent as no trial occurred.

The court interpreted the consent order broadly, considering the surrounding circumstances and correspondence between counsel, finding that 'outcome' included settlement.

The court also applied the 'interests of justice' test, concluding that lifting the stay was necessary to allow the plaintiff's professional negligence claim to be determined on its merits, despite the defendants' arguments regarding prejudice and the extinguishment of claims.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice after the trial was delayed due to the suspension of civil jury trials in Toronto during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiff argued that the delay and uncertainty of a jury trial caused financial prejudice.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the anticipated eight-month delay to the next scheduled jury sittings did not justify depriving the defendants of their substantive right to a jury trial, especially since they had based their litigation strategy on that right.

The trial was adjourned to the June 2021 civil jury sittings.

The applicant was rear-ended in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The Tribunal applied the 'but for' test for causation and found that the accident caused the applicant's psychological impairments.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the respondent's psychiatrist, the Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a marked impairment (Class 4) in three of four functional domains (Activities of Daily Living, Concentration, Persistence and Pace, and Adaptation).

The applicant was deemed catastrophically impaired.

However, claims for specific medical and rehabilitation benefits were dismissed as the applicant failed to provide the disputed treatment plans or prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The plaintiff, Hassan Iman Mame, brought a combined tort and accident benefits action following a motor vehicle accident.

After a jury verdict assessing non-pecuniary damages at $45,000, the trial judge conducted a threshold motion under s. 267.5 of the Insurance Act to determine if the plaintiff's injuries met the "permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function" test.

Despite the jury's assessment, the court found that the plaintiff's evidence, even at its highest, did not demonstrate an impairment that substantially interfered with most usual activities of daily living as required by O.Reg. 381/03.

Consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to non-pecuniary damages, which would have been subject to a statutory deductible.

The plaintiff was awarded $50,000 for pecuniary losses as assessed by the jury, and the accident benefits action against State Farm was dismissed based on the jury's negative answer.