4 total
Unopposed motions to consolidate two slip and fall actions and amend pleadings granted.
The plaintiff brought three unopposed motions in writing regarding two proceedings arising from the same alleged slip and fall accident.
The first two motions sought to consolidate the two actions, as the plaintiff had initially sued an unknown property management company and later commenced a second action upon learning its identity.
The third motion sought leave to amend the statement of claim in the consolidated proceeding to reflect the correct parties.
The court granted the consolidation, finding the proceedings had common questions of fact and law, and granted leave to amend the pleadings to correct the misnomer and remove discontinued parties.
Fall in parking lot caused by strapping on ground did not constitute an 'accident' under the Schedule.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after falling in a nursery parking lot.
She claimed she was in the process of unlocking her vehicle when her leg became caught in strapping on the ground.
The insurer denied the claim, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Schedule.
The Arbitrator found that the incident did not arise out of the use or operation of an automobile, as the evidence indicated she fell while turning away from returning a shopping cart, not while unlocking her vehicle.
Furthermore, the vehicle was not the direct cause of her injuries; the strapping on the ground was the intervening and dominant feature.
The application for arbitration was dismissed.
Tripping over a parked motorcycle qualifies as an accident for statutory accident benefits.
The respondent was injured when he tripped over a motorcycle parked on a walkway between trailers at a campsite.
The appellant insurer denied statutory accident benefits, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The application judge found that the temporary parking of the motorcycle constituted an ordinary or well-known use of the vehicle, satisfying the purpose test.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that parking a vehicle is an ordinary and well-known activity to which vehicles are put, and dismissed the appeal.
Collision with negligently parked motorcycle qualifies as accident under SABs.
An insurer brought an application seeking a declaration that the respondent’s injuries did not arise from an “accident” within the meaning of s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The respondent had tripped over a motorcycle that had been temporarily parked in a pedestrian walkway at a campsite and sustained serious spinal injuries.
Applying the two‑part purpose and causation test from Amos and subsequent Ontario Court of Appeal jurisprudence, the court held that the temporary parking of the motorcycle constituted the use or operation of an automobile.
The motorcycle’s placement in the walkway was found to be the dominant feature causing the injuries and created an unbroken chain of causation.
The court declared that the incident was an “accident” under the SABs.
