Matthew Miklaucic

The plaintiff tripped and fell at the defendant hospital, which admitted liability for the hazard.

The plaintiff claimed the physical injuries from the fall prevented her from caring for her terminally ill husband at home, forcing his return to the hospital where he died.

She sought damages for severe psychological injury (PTSD) stemming from her guilt over failing to fulfill his dying wish.

The court dismissed the claim, finding the plaintiff failed to establish factual causation, as her physical pain likely resulted from the unreasonable strain of caring for her husband alone, and her psychological symptoms were more likely attributable to pre-existing depression and complex bereavement.

The court further held that the alleged chain of causation was too remote to establish legal foreseeability.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful appeal by 2651171 Ontario Inc. The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined the quantum of costs for the motions for summary judgment and the action.

The appellant sought substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle made under Rule 49.10(1).

The respondent, Patrick Brey, objected to the quantum and argued for a reduction due to the appellant's unproven allegations of fraud.

The court found the appellant prima facie entitled to substantial indemnity costs due to the offer to settle, but ordered a reduction in the total amount awarded due to the unfounded allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation made by the appellant, emphasizing that such serious allegations require strict pleading and proof.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of a real estate agreement's requisition deadline for off-title objections, specifically regarding the lawful use of a property described as a fourplex.

The appellant buyer raised timely objections about the property's legal use, which the respondent seller refused to address, leading to the transaction's failure.

The motion judge had erred by misinterpreting the deadline provision, deeming the objections untimely.

The Court of Appeal found the objections were timely and valid, as the property's lawful use as a fourplex could not be confirmed.

The appeal was allowed, the lower court's judgment set aside, and the appellant was granted the return of its deposit and damages.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Somji J. dated April 27, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were filed, the court made no order as to costs.