Lisa Langevin

The plaintiff, Debbie Lee Wilson, claimed damages for injuries sustained from a slip and fall in a mall parking lot, fracturing her right elbow.

She sued the property manager and snow removal contractor for negligence under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The court found the defendants negligent for failing to apply salt in a timely manner, creating a dangerous icy surface.

The plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for not taking special precautions despite being aware of winter conditions.

Damages were awarded for general damages, past loss of income, future housekeeping/lawn maintenance, and future care costs, reduced by the plaintiff's contributory negligence.

The plaintiff initiated three actions stemming from a motor vehicle accident: a tort claim, an underinsured motorist claim, and a solicitor's negligence claim against his former lawyer.

The defendants moved to consolidate the actions and for a broad waiver of solicitor-client privilege and the deemed undertaking rule.

The court ordered the actions to be tried together or one after the other, at the discretion of the trial judge.

It denied the broad waiver of solicitor-client privilege and the deemed undertaking rule for information from the solicitor's negligence action for use in the other two actions, emphasizing the importance of privilege.

However, it dispensed with the deemed undertaking rule for information from the tort and OPCF actions for use in the solicitor's negligence action, and between the tort and OPCF actions.

The defendants in three related actions (a tort action, an OPCF underinsured motorist action, and a solicitor's negligence action) brought motions to consolidate the proceedings or have them heard together, and to dispense with the deemed undertaking rule.

The plaintiff opposed the inclusion of the solicitor's negligence action and the waiver of solicitor-client privilege.

The court ordered that the three actions be tried together or one after the other, subject to the trial judge's discretion.

However, the court held that the plaintiff's waiver of solicitor-client privilege applied only to the solicitor's negligence action and refused to dispense with the deemed undertaking rule for evidence obtained in that action, protecting the plaintiff's privilege in the tort and OPCF actions.

The plaintiff, Hassan Iman Mame, brought a combined tort and accident benefits action following a motor vehicle accident.

After a jury verdict assessing non-pecuniary damages at $45,000, the trial judge conducted a threshold motion under s. 267.5 of the Insurance Act to determine if the plaintiff's injuries met the "permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function" test.

Despite the jury's assessment, the court found that the plaintiff's evidence, even at its highest, did not demonstrate an impairment that substantially interfered with most usual activities of daily living as required by O.Reg. 381/03.

Consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to non-pecuniary damages, which would have been subject to a statutory deductible.

The plaintiff was awarded $50,000 for pecuniary losses as assessed by the jury, and the accident benefits action against State Farm was dismissed based on the jury's negative answer.

The defendant appealed a master's order granting a nunc pro tunc declaration deeming a statement of claim issued on the date it was received by the court, despite the registrar refusing issuance due to non-compliance with the rule requiring personal attendance.

The claim and filing fee had been delivered to the court office by courier on the final day of the limitation period, but the registrar returned the documents rather than contacting counsel.

The court held that the master's order corrected a procedural irregularity under the Rules of Civil Procedure rather than extending the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff had made a good faith effort to commence the action within the limitation period and the defendants suffered no prejudice apart from losing a technical limitation defence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought motions seeking nunc pro tunc orders deeming two actions to have been commenced within the limitation period.

Although the originating processes and fees were delivered to the court office on the final day of the limitation period, they were not issued because counsel attempted to file them by courier rather than by personal attendance as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The registrar returned the materials by mail, and the claims were formally issued after the limitation period expired.

The court held that the failure to comply with the procedural requirement constituted an irregularity capable of being cured, as the documents were in the registrar’s office on the relevant date and there was no prejudice to the defendants.

A nunc pro tunc order deeming the actions commenced on the limitation date was granted to permit the matters to proceed on their merits.