Lane Foster

The plaintiff, Kathleen MacNeill, sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained after ingesting a deliming agent in coffee served at a McDonald’s drive-thru.

The court found that while the incident was unsettling, the evidence did not establish that the plaintiff suffered any serious or permanent injury causally related to the incident.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s claims for general, income, and future care damages, awarding only $5,000 for temporary pain and inconvenience.

The decision turned on findings of credibility, causation, and the weight of expert and lay evidence.

The defendant, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, brought a motion to strike two Requests to Admit (RTAs) or, in the alternative, to withdraw deemed admissions that arose from their failure to respond to the RTAs.

The plaintiff argued that the non-response was deliberate and part of a pattern of uncooperative litigation conduct.

The court found the RTAs were not an abuse of process but allowed the withdrawal of admissions, finding a reasonable explanation (inadvertence) and no uncompensable prejudice to the plaintiff.

Despite the defendant's success on the motion, the court deprived them of costs due to their overall pattern of non-responsiveness and lack of cooperation, sanctioning their litigation conduct.

The defendant, 1190393 Ontario Limited o/a Phil’s Grandsons Place (PGP), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim arising from an altercation outside its premises.

The plaintiffs alleged PGP was liable for serving excessive alcohol to a co-defendant who assaulted one of the plaintiffs.

The court dismissed PGP's motion, finding that granting partial summary judgment would not be in the interests of justice due to the risk of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings, as a crossclaim by the co-defendant against PGP on the same issues would still proceed to trial.

The plaintiff was involved in a head-on motor vehicle collision caused by the defendants.

The defendants did not contest liability.

The trial focused on the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and damages.

The plaintiff claimed to have suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, chronic pain, and psychiatric injuries, rendering him unable to return to his employment as a Lead Hand electrician for the City of Guelph.

The defendants argued the plaintiff's injuries were exaggerated and that he could return to work with accommodation.

The court accepted the evidence of the plaintiff and his treating medical experts, finding that he suffered permanent and serious impairments, including cognitive deficits, vision and hearing issues, and chronic pain.

The court awarded the plaintiff $225,000 in general damages, $38,177.40 in special damages, $75,308 for past lost wages, $1,282,074 for future income loss, and $735,092 for future care costs.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The court found the defendant entirely at fault.

The court concluded the plaintiff's injuries, which included chronic pain and post-concussion syndrome, met the statutory threshold as a permanent serious impairment of an important physical function.

The plaintiff was awarded $100,000 in general damages, $1,993.10 in special damages, and $143,560.78 for future care costs.

Claims for past and future income loss were dismissed as the plaintiff failed to establish she would have worked as a dental assistant but for the accident.

The court denied approval of a settlement for a party under disability due to significant deficiencies in the motion material.

These deficiencies included insufficient medical evidence to assess the injured party's present and future needs, lack of full disclosure regarding a companion tort action and any settlement offers therein, and inadequate details for the proposed allocation of settlement funds.

Furthermore, the court found insufficient information regarding a loan from counsel to the applicant and the fairness and reasonableness of the contingency fee agreement, which appeared to conflate tort and accident benefits claims.

The court also dismissed the request to seal the court record, emphasizing the high bar for such an extraordinary order.

The matter was to be re-submitted after the identified deficiencies were addressed.