Mario Mannarino

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, sued the defendant, also an Ontario resident, for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Quebec.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1) to dismiss the action, arguing that Quebec law applied and barred the tort claim.

The court applied the choice of law rule from Tolofson v. Jensen, holding that the law of the place where the tort occurred (Quebec) governed the action.

Under Quebec's Automobile Insurance Act, tort actions for bodily injury from motor vehicle accidents are barred.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion seeking various forms of interim relief relating to possession and management of an Ottawa taxi plate that was the subject of a long-standing family dispute.

The moving party alleged breaches of a prior order governing rental payments and management of the taxi plate and sought additional orders including possession and other remedies.

The court found that the alleged breaches were disputed and that the existing order provided sufficient protection pending trial.

Leave was granted to amend the statement of defence to add a counterclaim under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the action was placed under case management with a timetable leading to trial.

Most substantive relief sought in the motion was dismissed, while procedural amendments and scheduling directions were granted.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment, challenging the trial judge's order to sell a taxi plate.

The appellant argued that no party had requested the sale, called evidence on it, or made submissions regarding it.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the trial judge denied the appellant a fair hearing by ordering the sale on his own motion without notice or reasons.

The appeal was allowed in part to set aside the order for sale, with costs awarded to the appellant.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding child custody, access, child support arrears, a restraining order, and costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision on custody, finding no errors that undermined the core analysis.

However, the Court set aside the trial judge's reduction of access, substituting the recommendations of the Children's Lawyer.

The Court also set aside the restraining order and the finding of child support arrears due to a lack of evidentiary basis.

Finally, the trial costs award was reduced from $20,000 to $6,000.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment on the grounds that the trial judge refused to grant an adjournment when the appellant was not present for trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's refusal to adjourn given the lack of explanation for the appellant's absence.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's findings on personal liability and damages, noting that the damages calculation was based on a spreadsheet provided well before trial.