David Derfel

The plaintiff, a welder, was injured on the defendant Yaya Foods Corporation's premises due to a faulty excavator operated by an independent contractor.

Yaya Foods brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing it was not liable as an occupier under the Occupiers' Liability Act for the independent contractor's equipment failure.

The court granted the motion, finding that the OLA does not impose a duty on an occupier to inspect the tools used by an independent contractor for safety.

Consequently, Yaya Foods was not found liable for the equipment's lack of maintenance, and the action against them was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought orders extending the time for service of her statement of claim and to set the action for trial in a solicitor's negligence claim against the defendant law firm.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the delay of over six and a half years in serving the claim to be extreme and inadequately explained.

The court also found significant actual prejudice to the defendant due to the passage of time, including likely loss of evidence and faded witness memories, and that allowing the action to proceed would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident and suffered a spinal fracture.

Liability was admitted by the defendant.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiff met the statutory threshold for permanent and serious impairment under the Insurance Act, and assess damages.

The court found significant credibility issues with the plaintiff's evidence, noting he had concealed pre-existing conditions and post-accident activities from his assessors.

Despite these credibility issues, the court accepted expert evidence that the plaintiff suffered a permanent serious impairment consisting of chronic left torso/rib pain and an adjustment disorder.

The court awarded $1,067,647 in total damages, applying substantial percentage reductions to the claimed amounts for loss of earning capacity and future care costs due to the unreliability of the plaintiff's self-reported limitations.

The moving party sought to set aside or vary an ex parte order that required her to file an application for a certificate of appointment of estate trustee or be deemed to have renounced.

The court found that the responding party failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts on the ex parte motion, specifically omitting that the moving party's counsel had responded and sought production of the drafting lawyer's file.

The ex parte order was set aside under Rule 39.01(6).

However, the court declined to grant the moving party's requested variation to compel production of the file, finding it overly broad for a motion to vary.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the moving party.