Melissa Miller

The plaintiffs requested a remote hearing for a pre-trial conference, citing travel distance, winter driving conditions, and counsel's childcare arrangements.

The court denied the request, noting that the presumptive mode of hearing for pre-trial conferences is in-person to facilitate settlement, and that the reasons provided were not clear and compelling.

However, the court reduced the conference duration to one hour and adjusted the start time to accommodate travel and childcare.

The court also offered the parties the option of a 30-minute remote case conference focused solely on trial management if they agreed to forgo settlement discussions.

This appeal addressed whether persistent feelings of frustration and anger, without evidence of impairment, constitute a compensable mental injury under the principles established in Saadati v. Moorhead.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by failing to apply the "Saadati factors" (cognitive impairment, impact on daily activities, and treatment) when assessing mental injury.

The Court concluded that the plaintiff's reported feelings, absent evidence of functional impairment or treatment, did not meet the legal threshold for a compensable mental injury.

The appeal was allowed, and the action dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for case management of 43 individual negligence actions against the defendants, operators of long-term care homes.

These actions originated from a proposed class action that was discontinued in 2018 and replaced with individual claims.

On consent, the parties agreed to withdraw the case management motion without costs, subject to terms including scheduling discoveries in designated actions and requiring the plaintiffs to bring motions to discontinue 25 of the actions.

The applicant retirement home sought an order in the nature of mandamus to compel the Sheriff to enforce a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order against a resident with severe physical disabilities.

The Sheriff had refused to enforce the order due to health and safety concerns and the lack of a safe alternative location for the resident.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the Sheriff has a mandatory statutory duty to enforce eviction orders and that the balance of convenience favoured enforcement, given the resident's failure to cooperate in finding alternative accommodations.

The Sheriff was given a delayed deadline to carry out the eviction.

The plaintiff sued multiple defendants for a serious workplace injury sustained when her arm was caught in a turret winder.

The defendant manufacturer, GN Gear, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and the co-defendants' crossclaims against it, arguing it only manufactured the machine to specifications and had no role in its design.

The court dismissed the motion against the plaintiff, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the interwoven nature of the design and manufacturing process due to reverse engineering, and the risk of inconsistent findings if partial summary judgment were granted.

The unopposed motion to dismiss the crossclaims was granted.

The applicant, Sunrise North Senior Living Ltd., brought an urgent application for judicial review seeking an order of mandamus to compel the Sheriff of the Regional Municipality of York to evict a respondent, Rohan Salmon, pursuant to Landlord and Tenant Board eviction orders.

The urgency was predicated on the Sheriff's position that the eviction order would expire on June 1, 2019, a point disputed by Sunrise.

The court, without deciding the expiry issue, renewed the eviction orders for one year to eliminate urgency and transferred the judicial review application to the Divisional Court for a full hearing.

The court determined the appropriate interest payable on unpaid Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought interest under s. 46(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) (2% compounded monthly), while the defendant argued for pre-judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act (CJA) (4.5% simple annual).

The court found that the claim for SABS interest was implicitly pleaded or, in the alternative, an amendment to the Statement of Claim would be permitted.

The court further ruled that SABS interest would apply from March 30, 2006, recognizing an initial period (February 20, 2004, to March 15, 2006) where the plaintiff's own conduct (misleading disability certificate) justified the insurer's non-payment, during which CJA interest would apply.

The plaintiff's counsel of record brought a motion seeking directions for a capacity assessment of the plaintiff and the appointment of the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) as her litigation guardian.

The court dismissed the request for a capacity assessment, finding that sufficient medical evidence had already been filed.

Relying on psychological and psychiatric reports indicating the plaintiff suffered from severe cognitive deficits, paranoia, and delusions, the court found the plaintiff was a party under disability incapable of instructing counsel or making litigation decisions.

The court appointed the PGT as litigation guardian and granted counsel's motion to be removed from the record.