Madeline Ferreira

The appellant's personal injury action was administratively dismissed for delay.

An order was obtained setting aside the dismissal on terms, but the appellant failed to take the required procedural steps or have the order entered.

Years later, the appellant moved to vary the terms of the order.

The motion judge dismissed the motion and stayed the action, finding extreme, unexplained delay and inferred prejudice to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the Reid factors or his conclusion that the delay was unexplained and prejudicial.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 37.14 to set aside a registrar's order dismissing the action for delay.

The action arose from a slip and fall at a subway station.

The delay was largely attributed to communication issues, missing correspondence, and the plaintiff's former counsel's health issues.

Applying the Reid factors, the Master found that the delay was adequately explained, the failure to set down was inadvertent, and the defendant suffered no actual prejudice.

The motion was granted and the dismissal order was set aside.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained after falling from a subway platform onto the tracks at a Toronto subway station.

He claimed he slipped on a gluey or sticky substance on the platform and alleged negligence by the transit authority.

The court found the evidence of transit employees and an independent witness more credible and concluded the platform was clean and dry and that the plaintiff had walked off the platform edge.

The transit authority’s inspection, maintenance, and safety measures satisfied the duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act.

Liability was therefore not established and the action was dismissed, though the court assessed damages that would have applied had negligence been proven.

The appellant, an unregistered broker, sued for compensation under an agreement to sell the respondents' business and real estate.

The motion judge stayed the action under s. 22 of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, which bars actions for remuneration in connection with a trade in real estate by unregistered persons.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that s. 22 does not apply to the sale of a business effected by a share transaction, relying on Supreme Court precedent.

The stay was set aside regarding the claim for the sale of the business, but affirmed for claims relating to the lease extension and other services.