Darren Kirupa

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal of an arbitration order, the successful respondent sought its legal appeal expenses.

The Director's Delegate found that the respondent was completely successful and entitled to its expenses based on the outcome of the proceeding.

Noting that the appeal was neither long nor complex and was conducted jointly with the appellant's spouse's appeal, the Director's Delegate ordered the appellant to pay the respondent $2,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal of an arbitration order, the respondent sought its legal appeal expenses.

The Director's Delegate found that the respondent was completely successful in resisting the appeal and was therefore entitled to its expenses based on the degree of success.

The respondent was awarded $2,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The appellants appealed an arbitrator's decision dismissing their applications for accident benefits after they failed to attend the arbitration hearing.

The appellants argued they had not received proper notice of the hearing.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator's determination regarding notice was a finding of fact supported by evidence from the appellants' former counsel.

As appeals under Rule 50.1 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code are limited to questions of law, and there was evidence to support the arbitrator's finding, no error of law was made in dismissing the applications pursuant to Rule 37.9.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

After the application was filed, the respondent paid the arrears and conceded ongoing entitlement, subject to its right to conduct future medical examinations.

The respondent argued the Tribunal lost jurisdiction because there was no longer a dispute.

The Tribunal held it retained jurisdiction because a dispute existed when the application was filed.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for the income replacement benefit as it had been conceded, and refused to issue a declaratory order of ongoing entitlement, finding it would be based on a hypothetical future denial.

The parties were directed to make submissions on interest.

The plaintiff, an 80-year-old woman, sued the City of Toronto after slipping and falling on an allegedly icy sidewalk near an intersection.

The court applied the two-step test for municipal liability under the City of Toronto Act, requiring the plaintiff to first prove the sidewalk was in a state of non-repair.

Based on weather records, winter patrol logs, and the plaintiff's footwear, the court found the plaintiff failed to establish that the sidewalk was in a state of disrepair or presented a dangerous condition.

The action was dismissed, and the City waived its claim for costs.

The plaintiffs brought an action alleging negligence and breach of contract arising from the failure to commence a personal injury action within the limitation period after an automobile accident.

They sued a paralegal firm and a law firm alleged to have promoted a partnership relationship with the paralegal provider.

The lawyer defendants brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the claim on the basis that the plaintiffs were not their clients and that the individual lawyers were protected as members of a limited liability partnership.

The court struck the claims against the individual lawyers without leave to amend, finding they were not partners in the alleged partnership and had no viable claim against them.

However, the court held it was not plain and obvious that the law firm owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs given representations suggesting a partnership relationship, and granted leave to amend the pleading to pursue claims against the firm for vicarious liability, professional negligence, and negligent misrepresentation.