Emily Hill

The applicants brought a motion to enforce an interim settlement agreement with the City of Toronto regarding physical distancing standards in the city's shelter system during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The City had asserted compliance with the agreement on June 15, 2020, which would trigger the termination of the agreement.

The court found that the City breached the agreement by asserting compliance when it had not used its 'best efforts' to achieve the required physical distancing standards across all sites.

The court ordered the City to continue its pre-compliance reporting obligations until it fully met its obligations under the agreement.

The applicants brought a refusals motion to compel answers and document production from the City of Toronto and Ontario in a Charter application challenging shelter standards during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The motion sought to enforce an Interim Settlement Agreement regarding physical distancing and bed capacity in shelters.

The court granted the motion in part, finding many of the City's refusals improper regarding system-wide compliance data for the May 15-June 15, 2020 period, but upheld other refusals based on proportionality, particularly concerning the Central Intake service, daily capacity data, and information outside the specified period.

The court apportioned costs between the defendants following a 39-day trial where the plaintiffs were awarded approximately $12 million in damages.

The Jantzi defendants were found 80% at fault for a motor vehicle accident, and All Star Tap & Grill 20% at fault for over-serving alcohol, with the plaintiff Wesley Hummel 25% contributorily negligent.

The Jantzi defendants argued All Star should bear 80% of post-offer costs due to their refusal to settle, while All Star argued costs should follow the trial's liability apportionment (75% Jantzi, 25% All Star after contributory negligence).

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01 and Section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, including offers to settle and policy limits.

Ultimately, the court ordered the Jantzi defendants to pay one-third of the plaintiffs' costs and All Star Tap & Grill to pay two-thirds, based on their respective insurance policy limits ($1 million for Jantzi, $2 million for All Star).

The plaintiff suffered a severe traumatic brain injury in a motor vehicle accident while riding as a passenger in a vehicle driven by the defendant.

Prior to the accident, both the plaintiff and the driver had consumed alcohol at the All Star Tap & Grill House.

The court found the driver 80% liable for the accident due to impaired driving and the commercial host 20% liable for over-serving alcohol and failing to prevent the intoxicated driver from operating a vehicle.

The plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for failing to wear a seatbelt, entering a vehicle with an impaired driver, and encouraging the driver to speed.

The court assessed the plaintiff's damages, including $300,000 for non-pecuniary damages, significant amounts for past and future loss of income, and over $9 million for the cost of future care.

Family Law Act claims were also awarded to the plaintiff's parents and siblings.

The tenant and occupant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating the tenancy on the basis that the tenant illegally transferred possession of the unit to his sister.

The Divisional Court found the Board erred in law by assuming a person can only have one residence and failing to properly apply the test for transfer of occupancy under s. 100 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appeal was allowed, the Board's order was set aside, and the landlord's application was dismissed.

The appellant, an ODSP recipient, appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which held that the 'cost of transportation' for medical travel by private vehicle under O. Reg. 222/98 was limited to operating costs and excluded ownership costs.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's interpretation unreasonable.

The Court held that the plain meaning, context, and purpose of the legislation did not support excluding ownership costs from the calculation of the medical transportation benefit, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for redetermination.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying him compensation for injuries sustained in an assault.

The Board found the assault was directly related to his activities as a drug trafficker and his injury was a foreseeable consequence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's application of proportionality principles or its admission of hearsay evidence under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.