Mary A. Teal

The plaintiff, Rose Marie Sprowl, slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot of Bridgeport Plaza in Waterloo, Ontario, suffering a hip fracture.

She alleged that the defendants, as occupiers of the plaza, failed in their duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act to keep the premises reasonably safe.

The court found that the winter maintenance contractor, Clintar, failed to adequately monitor, salt, and inspect the parking spaces, and that the owner, First Capital, failed to ensure the work was properly done.

Both were found liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

The court rejected arguments of contributory negligence and found the defendants 100% responsible for damages.

The Corporation of the City of Kawartha Lakes moved to stay or dismiss the action against it, alleging abuse of process due to the plaintiffs' delayed disclosure of a cooperation agreement with co-defendants.

The plaintiffs concurrently moved for court approval of this agreement.

The court examined the disclosure obligations for partial settlement agreements that alter the litigation landscape.

It found that while immediate disclosure is generally required, the moving party had sufficient prior knowledge of the agreement's essential terms to avoid "litigation by ambush." Consequently, the motion to stay was dismissed, and the plaintiffs' motion to approve the cooperation agreement was granted.

A separate consent motion to dismiss the action against The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company and John Doe was also granted.

The plaintiff, Deborah Tilli, brought an action for damages for personal injuries sustained in a physical altercation with another student, Erica DiTomaso, at school.

The action also alleged negligent supervision against the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board and its teachers.

The court found no liability on the part of the school board, determining that its supervision policy met the standard of a careful and prudent parent for 15-year-old students.

However, the court found Erica DiTomaso liable for battery, concluding that while the initial altercation was a "consent fight" DiTomaso used excessive and unreasonable force by banging the plaintiff's head on the floor.

Damages were mitigated by the plaintiff's provocation (name-calling), resulting in DiTomaso being 60% responsible and the plaintiff 40% responsible for her injuries.

The parties settled a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident six days before trial for $775,000 plus costs.

The plaintiff sought partial and substantial indemnity costs totalling approximately $246,000 in fees and $157,500 in disbursements.

The defendant argued the amounts were excessive.

The court reviewed the claimed fees and disbursements, noting some duplication and excessive preparation time.

Applying the principle of reasonableness, the court fixed the plaintiff's fees at $170,000 plus HST and disbursements at $98,800 inclusive of HST.

This endorsement addresses costs, pre-judgment interest, and collateral benefit deductions following a three-week jury trial in a motor vehicle accident case.

The court determined pre-judgment interest for Meaghan Dunk's general damage award and denied the defendants' request for collateral benefit deductions from her future health care award, emphasizing the strict onus on defendants to prove overlap with statutory accident benefits.

The court also fixed Meaghan Dunk's costs at a substantial indemnity rate from the date of her Rule 49 offer, and partial indemnity prior, and adjusted her disbursements.

For Shelby Dunk, whose claim settled, the court fixed her disbursements.

The defendant insurer sought leave to appeal a motion judge's dismissal of its motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action involved the interpretation of family protection coverage under an Ontario policy where the at-fault driver was insured under a New Brunswick policy.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusion that a trial was necessary to fully appreciate the evidence and issues, particularly regarding the New Brunswick insurance policy and settlement approaches.