Tony Afecto

The plaintiff brought a civil action alleging assault and excessive force by police officers during an arrest that resulted in a shoulder injury.

The plaintiff conceded that the officers had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest but argued that the arresting officer used excessive force.

The court found that the officer used only a simple grab to pull the plaintiff away from discarded drugs and another suspect, causing the plaintiff to fall and injure his shoulder.

Applying principles under s. 25 of the Criminal Code and relevant case law on justified use of force, the court held that the force used was reasonable in the circumstances.

The action for damages was dismissed.

The applicant, an Aboriginal Catholic, alleged that her former employer discriminated against her on the basis of religion and disability.

She claimed she was unfairly criticized and terminated because of her religion, and that the employer failed to accommodate her disability-related needs following a medical leave.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the employer's actions were motivated by the applicant's religion or disability.

The evidence showed the applicant was terminated due to perceived misconduct and interpersonal issues.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff suffered injuries at the defendant's amusement park but failed to commence an action within the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 due to lawyer inadvertence.

The motion judge applied the common law doctrine of special circumstances to extend the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the defendant's appeal, holding that the Limitations Act, 2002 is a comprehensive scheme that does not preserve the court's common law discretion to extend limitation periods based on special circumstances.

The action was declared statute-barred.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a trial judge's decision not to award him costs after successfully defending a motor vehicle accident claim.

The jury found the defendant liable but awarded only $3,000 in damages, and the trial judge subsequently dismissed the action on a threshold motion.

The trial judge declined to award costs to the successful defendant, citing the plaintiff's difficult circumstances, the complexity of the medical history, and the fact that the plaintiff had established liability and some injury.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the trial judge did not exercise his discretion based on a misapprehension of facts or an erroneous principle of law.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on a snowbank while disembarking from a public transit bus.

The insurer denied benefits, arguing the injuries were not directly caused by the use or operation of the bus.

The arbitrator found the applicant's account credible and determined that disembarking was integral to the use of the bus.

The arbitrator concluded that the use or operation of the bus directly caused the injuries, satisfying the definition of an 'accident' under section 2(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits, which the insurer denied.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a seamstress, satisfying the pre-104 week IRB test.

Furthermore, due to her chronic pain, psychological condition, and limited education and English proficiency, she met the post-104 week test of a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment.

The arbitrator also awarded the claimed medical benefits, finding them reasonable and necessary for pain management, along with interest on overdue amounts.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following motor vehicle accidents in 1994.

After a long history of delays and multiple changes in legal representation, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing on May 29, 2000, and requested its cancellation.

The arbitrator gave the applicant a final opportunity to provide written submissions explaining his absence.

Finding the submissions unpersuasive and noting the applicant's failure to conscientiously pursue the arbitration, the arbitrator dismissed the arbitration.

The applicant was ordered to pay $849.75 in previously ordered expenses to the insurer, but no new expenses were awarded because the arbitration was commenced prior to November 1, 1996.