Stephen Brogden

The plaintiff sued the defendant municipality after slipping and falling on an icy city sidewalk.

The city had no policy to call in maintenance operators before their regular 7:00 a.m. start time to address icy conditions caused by overnight thaw-freeze cycles, despite having a policy to do so for 8 cm of snow.

The court found the city's policy unreasonable and held the city grossly negligent under the Municipal Act, 2001.

However, the plaintiff was found 50% contributorily negligent for wearing running shoes instead of winter boots and failing to walk around the visible ice.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued the at-fault driver.

Years later, upon discovering the tortfeasor was underinsured, the appellant sued his own insurer under the OPCF 44 Family Protection Endorsement.

The insurer successfully moved to dismiss the action as statute-barred.

On appeal, the appellant argued the limitation period should only begin when damages are quantified by judgment or settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the limitation period begins when the insured has accumulated a body of evidence that would give a reasonable chance of persuading a judge that the claim exceeds the minimum liability limits.

The appellants appealed an order striking out their defence and counterclaim due to outstanding undertakings.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by refusing to hear from the appellants' counsel and by striking out the defence when the outstanding undertakings related only to the counterclaim.

Despite the lengthy delay in the proceeding, the appeal was allowed, the motion judge's order was set aside, and the plaintiff's motion was dismissed with no costs.