George Pappas

The applicants challenged the validity of a purported will dated September 10, 2020, allegedly made by Kenneth Ryan Hill, a wealthy status Indian and permanent resident of the Six Nations of the Grand River Reserve.

The will named the respondent, Mr. Hill's son, as executor and left his interest in Grand River Enterprises (worth approximately $38 million) to him, with bequests of $5 million to each of his other children (except two who received nothing or $3 million).

The applicants argued that Mr. Hill did not sign the will and did not know and approve of its contents.

The court found that the respondent failed to establish that Mr. Hill signed the purported will and that suspicious circumstances surrounded its execution.

The court also found that the respondent failed to prove that Mr. Hill knew and approved of the will's contents.

The purported will was declared invalid both under the Indian Act and at common law.

The defendants brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement of $50,000 all-inclusive reached with the plaintiff's former counsel.

The plaintiff argued the settlement was based on a mistake due to a faulty translation by a paralegal during a phone call with his former counsel.

The court found that a clear and unequivocal settlement was reached and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or injustice that would justify refusing to enforce it.

The motion was granted and the settlement was enforced.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after sustaining injuries during an altercation that began when he was sitting in his running rental vehicle.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the incident was an assault, not an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the dominant feature of the incident was an unprovoked assault, which constituted an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.

The application was dismissed as the incident did not meet the definition of an accident.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their negligence claim arising from a personal injury sustained during a fitness class at the respondent's facility.

The plaintiff stepped on a round dumbbell and fell.

The motion judge found that the respondents were not negligent, that the round dumbbell did not pose an unusual hazard, and that the risk of a round dumbbell rolling was obvious.

The motion judge also rejected the appellants' argument regarding a duty to warn.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant was injured on a GO Bus and awarded $35,000 in non-pecuniary damages by a jury.

The trial judge reduced the award to zero by applying the statutory deductible under the Insurance Act, finding that while the respondent employer was vicariously liable, its liability could not exceed that of its protected employee driver pursuant to s. 267.5(10.1).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that an employer's vicarious liability is capped at the amount for which the protected defendant employee is liable.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits and medical/rehabilitation benefits for prescription medication (primarily Oxycontin).

The arbitrator found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life within 104 weeks of the accident, dismissing the claim for non-earner benefits.

However, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating physician over the insurer's paper-review assessor, the arbitrator found the ongoing prescription of narcotics to be reasonable and necessary for chronic pain management, awarding $25,546.02 for medication expenses.

Claims for the cost of medical reports and a special award were dismissed.