Earl J. Murtha

The trial concerned a third-party claim by the defendant, Cristy Mitton, against the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and its contractor, Carillion Canada Inc., alleging negligent winter maintenance of Highway 41.

Mitton had previously settled the main action with the plaintiff, Ronald Busch, admitting 1% liability.

The court found that Highway 41 was in a state of non-repair due to being partially snow-packed, and this condition caused Mitton to lose control.

However, the MTO successfully discharged its onus by proving its winter maintenance operations were reasonable, including the decision to use salt despite low temperatures, as it was a judgment call aimed at achieving bare pavement.

The court dismissed the third-party claim, finding no liability on the MTO.

The appellant, Ontario Place Corporation, appealed a trial judge's decision finding them liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act for injuries sustained by the respondent, Patrick Lyng, on their premises.

The trial judge found Ontario Place 75% liable and the respondent 25% contributorily negligent for a knee injury sustained after jumping down a wet, slippery hill when a pedestrian bridge was closed.

The appeal raised issues regarding the theory of liability, causation, breach of duty under the Act, contributory negligence, and the award for loss of competitive advantage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings on all grounds, including the "train of events" causation and the damages award.

The plaintiff, Patrick Lyng, sued Ontario Place Corporation under the Occupiers' Liability Act for a serious knee injury sustained after a concert.

The injury occurred when he fell down a wet, grassy hill after a pedestrian bridge, the shortest route to the Go Station, was closed.

The court found Ontario Place Corporation 75% liable for failing to take reasonable care by not providing adequate warnings or barriers for the known hazardous hill, especially given the wet conditions and the presence of intoxicated patrons.

The plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for jumping down the hill while intoxicated and wearing flip-flops.

The court awarded damages for non-pecuniary loss, past income loss, and future loss of competitive advantage, totaling $131,525.41 before prejudgment interest, reduced by the plaintiff's contributory negligence.

The appellant, a homeowner, sought indemnification under her property insurance policy for damage to her log house caused by a contractor's restoration work.

The trial judge found coverage existed but dismissed her claim due to late notice of the loss, denying relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal but varied the costs awards, finding the trial judge had expanded the scope of issues beyond those directed by the appellate court in its prior decision, thereby increasing the appellant's reasonable cost expectations.

The appellants sought leave to amend their statement of defence to plead a limitations defence at a very late stage of litigation, after failing to comply with a consent order deadline.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the appellants had not demonstrated it was in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellants appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in characterizing the order as a consent order, in finding inadequate explanation for delay, and in considering prejudice beyond the two-month delay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the motion judge properly applied the test and that the appellants failed to provide a compelling explanation for their non-compliance with the consent order.

The defendants, former lawyers of the plaintiff, brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of defence in a negligence action.

The plaintiff was seriously injured in a 2000 motor vehicle accident, and her tort claim was dismissed in 2009 due to a missed limitation period.

She then sued her former lawyers for negligence.

The defendants sought to add allegations regarding the standard of care at the time the tort claim was issued (2002) and a limitation defence against the plaintiff's current negligence claim.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing abuse of process, res judicata, collateral attack, and non-compensable prejudice due to the potential loss of a claim against her current lawyers.

The court granted leave for all proposed amendments, finding them legally tenable and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated non-compensable prejudice.

The court also clarified that leave to bring the motion under Rule 48.04 was not required as the defendants had not set the action down for trial.