Joseph M. Dillon

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident injured in a bus accident in New York State, brought a motion to affirm the jurisdiction of the Ontario Superior Court.

The defendants, a Michigan trucking company and the estate of its driver, brought a cross-motion to stay the action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

While the court found it had jurisdiction simpliciter based on several connecting factors, it granted the defendants' cross-motion and stayed the action, concluding that New York was the more appropriate forum given that the accident occurred there, New York law applied, and 35 other passengers had already commenced actions in New York.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict arising from a motor vehicle accident, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and that the respondent's counsel made a prejudicial jury address.

The Court of Appeal held that it was open to the jury to conclude the respondent steered into the oncoming lane to avoid an unidentified vehicle.

The court also found that a factual error in the respondent's jury address did not prejudice the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict, arguing that evidence regarding a walkway's failure to meet Building Code fire safety requirements was improperly admitted.

The Court of Appeal agreed the evidence was irrelevant but dismissed the appeal, finding its admission caused no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The trial judge had questioned the value of the evidence in his charge, and the defence's position at trial was that a retaining wall provided safe access, making the walkway a marginal factor.

The appellant, a self-employed life insurance agent, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed income replacement benefits.

The dispute centered on whether the commissions he received in the 52 weeks prior to the accident should be treated entirely as income or as a combination of income and a loan under a 'renewal capitalization' plan.

The arbitrator found that the payments were a combination of income and loan, meaning only the earned commission portion should be included in the pre-accident income calculation.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding ample accounting evidence to support the conclusion that the loan portion did not become income until policies were renewed.