Michael Blois

The plaintiff suffered a severe wrist injury after falling on unsecured wooden steps at the defendant's property.

The defendant's pleadings were struck, resulting in a default judgment on liability.

The court found the defendant 100% liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act for failing to ensure the premises were reasonably safe.

The plaintiff was awarded $280,000 in damages, plus an OHIP subrogation claim and substantial indemnity costs, due to the permanent and debilitating nature of her injury.

The applicant was sitting in his parked vehicle when he was assaulted by armed assailants attempting to steal his car.

While trying to escape, the applicant put the vehicle in reverse with his leg outside the door, colliding with a dumpster and resulting in the amputation of his leg.

The respondent denied statutory accident benefits on the basis that the incident was an assault, not an accident.

The Tribunal applied the two-part purpose and causation test, finding that reversing the vehicle was an ordinary use of an automobile and was the dominant feature that directly caused the applicant's leg injury.

The Tribunal concluded the incident met the definition of an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Schedule.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of female cadets who allegedly suffered sexual misconduct while enrolled in the Cadet Program.

The plaintiffs alleged systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of s. 7 of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the certification motion.

While the negligence claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action, the other claims were struck.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to provide some basis in fact that there was an identifiable class of two or more persons, that the claims raised common issues, or that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, as the allegations would require highly individualized inquiries.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class action against the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of veterans who experienced delays in the processing of disability benefits.

The court applied the five-part test under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court struck the claims for breach of s. 7 of the Charter, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation, finding it plain and obvious they could not succeed.

However, the court found the negligence claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court certified the class action for the negligence claim, conditional on the plaintiff amending the class definition.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the jury notices in two motor vehicle accident actions that were to be tried together.

The actions had already been set down for trial, requiring the plaintiff to seek leave under Rule 48.04(1).

The court denied leave, finding no evidence to explain the delay in bringing the motion and that the 'interests of justice' test was not met.

The court further held that even if leave were granted, it would not strike the jury notices, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that justice would be better served by a judge-alone trial.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

During a personal injury jury trial involving a laceration and subsequent amputation, the court ruled on the permissible ranges of damages counsel could suggest to the jury.

The court also reversed an earlier ruling, deciding to ask the jury to specify the particulars of the defendant's negligence due to scant liability evidence.

Finally, the court granted the defendant's request for an adverse inference instruction regarding the plaintiff's failure to call treating health professionals, noting their evidence was material to causation and damages.

During a personal injury trial involving a plaintiff who was injured by an unidentified hazard in a hardware store, the defendant sought to have the issue of contributory negligence put to the jury.

The court dismissed the request, finding no evidentiary basis for contributory negligence because neither party could identify a foreseeable risk or hazard that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care to avoid.

The minor plaintiff was seriously injured after hanging onto the outside of a moving escalator handrail at the defendants' shopping mall and falling from a height.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendants owed no duty of care to protect the plaintiff from such an obvious and self-evidently dangerous activity.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff willingly assumed the risk under s. 4(1) of the Occupiers' Liability Act, and that the defendants' security measures were reasonable.

The moving party sought leave to amend a statement of claim to add a condominium corporation as a defendant more than two years after an alleged stairway collapse.

The court held that on a motion to add a party after the apparent expiry of the limitation period, the court may determine whether the claim is statute-barred where the evidentiary record shows the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the identity and potential liability of the proposed defendant.

Applying the discoverability principles under the Limitations Act, 2002, the court found the plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge from contemporaneous contracts, correspondence, cheques, and a failure to conduct a simple property search within the limitation period.

The motion to add the proposed defendant was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding parties.