4 total
Summary judgment granted dismissing negligence and occupier's liability claims for unexplained mosh pit injury.
The plaintiffs sued the defendants for negligence, occupier's liability, and breach of the Liquor Licence Act after the plaintiff suffered a severe spinal injury in a mosh pit at a heavy metal concert.
The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment.
The court found no evidence that the injury was reasonably foreseeable or that the defendants breached the standard of care, noting that security guards were present and actively monitoring the crowd.
The court granted the summary judgment motion and dismissed the action.
The plaintiffs' action was dismissed on the basis of res judicata following a prior dismissal in Georgia.
The defendants Xytex Corporation, Xytex Cryo International Inc., Mary Hartley, and Dr. James Todd Spradlin brought a motion to dismiss the action based on res judicata, arguing that the plaintiffs' identical action in Georgia had already been dismissed on the merits.
The plaintiffs opposed, contending the Georgia decision was not on the merits due to a procedural dismissal of their appeal.
The court found that the Georgia Superior Court's dismissal was a decision on the merits, and the subsequent procedural dismissal of the appeal did not negate its finality.
Applying the principles of res judicata, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' action in Ontario, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial and no special circumstances to permit re-litigation.
Late service of amended claim validated absent evidence of actual prejudice.
The plaintiff in a civil action for damages arising from an alleged assault brought a motion to validate late and irregular service of an amended statement of claim on three defendants.
Two defendants had been personally served after the six‑month service period prescribed by Rule 14.08(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure had expired, while the third had only been served by mail without prior authorization for substituted service.
The court considered whether to extend time and validate service under Rule 3.01, focusing on whether the defendants suffered actual prejudice from the delay.
Relying on appellate guidance emphasizing prejudice rather than counsel’s conduct, the court found no evidence of actual prejudice despite the expiry of the limitation period.
Service was validated and the time for service extended, with time for delivery of statements of defence also extended.
Motion to dismiss action for unpaid costs denied due to impecuniosity; additional defence medical examinations ordered.
The moving defendants sought to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury action for failure to pay a previous costs award and failure to comply with an interlocutory order regarding undertakings.
The Master declined to dismiss the action, finding the plaintiff was impecunious.
The defendants also sought production of the plaintiff's accident benefits file from a subsequent motor vehicle accident and orders for two additional independent medical examinations.
The Master ordered the plaintiff to produce relevant documents from the subsequent accident benefits file and to attend the requested independent medical examinations with a neuropsychologist and a psychiatrist to ensure trial fairness.
