Joseph Falconeri

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike a jury notice due to court availability issues in Kingston, while the defendant brought a motion to adjourn the trial so it could be heard together with a separate action arising from a subsequent 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The court conditionally struck the jury notice, noting that criminal trials take priority and a civil jury trial was unlikely to proceed as scheduled.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion to adjourn, finding that delaying a 2012 accident claim by several more years to allow the 2018 action to catch up would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiffs.

Following a personal injury trial where the plaintiff was awarded damages but found 25% contributorily negligent, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought over $817,000 in costs and disbursements, arguing for substantial indemnity costs from the date of a Rule 49 offer.

The defendants argued for an award of $380,000 inclusive of disbursements.

The court rejected the application of substantial indemnity costs, finding the trial result was not a 'near miss' to the plaintiff's offer.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, the court fixed costs at $500,000 all-inclusive on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff suffered a severe quadriceps rupture after slipping and falling on a poorly lit, defectively designed stairway at a Sandals resort in Saint Lucia.

The court applied Saint Lucian law to determine liability, finding the resort breached its duty of care as an occupier.

The plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for descending the stairs in the dark.

Applying Ontario law for the quantification of damages, the court awarded general damages, future care costs, and special damages, rejecting the defendants' arguments that the plaintiff's pre-existing osteoarthritis or a subsequent re-injury broke the chain of causation.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for damages for injuries suffered when he was struck as a pedestrian by an unidentified motor vehicle.

The trial judge found the accident occurred in a vacant parking lot, not on a public highway, and therefore the reverse onus provision under s. 193(1) of the Highway Traffic Act did not apply.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding the appellant failed to prove the accident happened on a highway and that negligence could not be inferred from the injuries alone.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant insurer appealed an order that dismissed its motion for summary judgment and set aside a settlement agreement with the respondent.

The insurer conceded there were deficiencies in the notice provided under the settlement regulation but argued they were immaterial.

The Court of Appeal held that the materiality of the deficiencies could not be determined on the motion record.

However, the court found the motion judge erred by setting aside the settlement instead of merely dismissing the summary judgment motion.

The appeal was allowed in part to substitute an order dismissing the motion for summary judgment.