Michael J.T. Best

The defendant Church brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a slip and fall claim by the plaintiff, who suffered injuries in the Church's icy parking lot.

The Church argued it had a reasonable winter maintenance system and that the plaintiff willingly assumed the risk.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether the Church breached its duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act and whether the plaintiff's actions constituted a willing assumption of risk under the narrow interpretation of the volenti doctrine.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following its decision to allow an appeal, finding the original trial unfair to the self-represented, non-English speaking appellant.

The court awarded the appellant trial and appeal disbursements, and a modest fee allowance for her and her husband's time as self-represented litigants, emphasizing that costs should dissuade misconduct.

The court also reserved pre-trial costs to the re-trial judge, with a directive that the respondent should not recover costs related to their criticized trial conduct.

The appellant, a self-represented, non-English speaking litigant, appealed a trial judgment that dismissed her claim for general damages and awarded substantial costs against her following a motor vehicle accident.

The Court of Appeal found the trial procedurally and substantively unfair due to several errors: the improper management and use of a "Joint Trial Brief" that unfairly excluded evidence favorable to the appellant; the erroneous admission and use of expert medical opinion (Dr. Sanchez's report) as hearsay without cross-examination, while excluding the appellant's expert (Dr. Becker); and the prejudicial use of information about the appellant's statutory accident benefits settlement to suggest malingering.

The Court also found the trial judge erred in failing to revisit the decision not to strike the jury given the complexities and the appellant's self-represented status.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment and orders set aside, and a new trial ordered.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of a motion for summary judgment brought by the defendants, Joe Avila and Sonia Avila (the "Hosts").

The plaintiff, Luis Avila, successfully opposed the summary judgment motion and sought costs of $25,000.00.

The defendants argued for no costs or a reduced amount of $10,500.00, citing the reusability of work for the continuing trial against the third defendant, Rui Couto.

The court, applying principles from the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $12,500.00 plus disbursements of $1,341.95, acknowledging some efficiencies for trial but rejecting the argument to defer all costs.

The defendants Joe Avila and Sonia Avila (the "Hosts") brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff Luis Avila's claim against them.

The claim alleged social host liability for injuries Luis Avila sustained during a physical interaction with another guest, Rui Couto, at a birthday party hosted by the Avilas.

The court found genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the foreseeability of harm, Couto's intoxication and behaviour, and the Hosts' awareness, which involved credibility determinations.

Given that the action would continue against Couto, granting partial summary judgment against the Hosts carried a risk of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent factual findings, which was deemed not to be in the interests of justice.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant sought to set aside a chambers judge's decision dismissing her motion to perfect her appeal without filing a transcript of proceedings from a 20-day jury trial.

The appellant argued financial inability to obtain transcripts and sought leave to file a digital audio recording instead.

The Court of Appeal upheld the chambers judge's decision, finding that transcripts were necessary given the fact-driven nature of the issues on appeal.

The court acknowledged that while modern technology may eventually allow for more flexible procedures, such experimentation should occur with consent of all parties and active judicial management.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

This is a costs endorsement following a motor vehicle accident trial where the plaintiff, Yolanda Girao, was unsuccessful in her claim for non-pecuniary damages against Lynn Cunningham due to failing to meet the statutory threshold, and her claim for past loss of income was reduced to zero.

The jury found Cunningham 100% at fault, leading to the dismissal of the action against Allstate Insurance Company of Canada.

Cunningham sought costs against Girao, and Allstate sought costs against Cunningham (via a Sanderson order) or, alternatively, against Girao.

The court awarded Cunningham costs against Girao on a partial indemnity scale.

The court also granted a Sanderson order, requiring Cunningham to pay Allstate's costs on a partial indemnity scale, finding that Cunningham's position regarding an unidentified motorist compelled the plaintiff to sue Allstate, and Cunningham failed to shift responsibility.

The defendant Lynn Cunningham brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff Yolanda Girao's claims for non-pecuniary loss, arguing that the plaintiff failed to prove her injuries met the statutory threshold under subsection 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court applied the "but for" test for causation and the three-part threshold test (permanence, importance, seriousness of impairment).

It found that while the plaintiff suffered three soft tissue injuries caused by the accident, she failed to prove causation for chronic pain, fibromyalgia, temporomandibular joint issues, dizziness, and the severity of her psychological issues.

Consequently, the plaintiff did not establish a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function directly caused by the accident, leading to the dismissal of her non-pecuniary loss claim.

During a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendant moved for a determination that the plaintiff’s claim for non‑pecuniary damages was barred under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court considered whether the plaintiff sustained a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical function, the statutory threshold required to recover such damages.

After reviewing medical evidence, credibility findings, and the plaintiff’s post‑accident activities, the court concluded that the plaintiff did not establish a permanent impairment and, in any event, any impairment was neither important nor serious.

The judge also noted the modest jury award for pain and suffering as consistent with the evidentiary record.

The plaintiff was therefore barred from recovering non‑pecuniary damages.

An insurer sought a declaration determining which of two insurance policies responded to liability arising from a motor vehicle collision involving a rented vehicle operated by an employee of a production company.

The dispute turned on whether the vehicle had been leased under a single agreement exceeding 30 days, triggering coverage under a commercial general liability policy, or under a series of shorter rental contracts that would leave coverage under a standard automobile policy.

The respondent argued the issue was barred by issue estoppel following earlier proceedings and an appellate decision.

The court held that the prior appellate ruling set aside the earlier decision only because the evidentiary record was insufficient and therefore did not create issue estoppel on the substantive question.

Interpreting the limited documentary record, the court concluded the rental arrangement constituted a single agreement of more than 30 days and that the respondent insurer was required to respond.

In multi‑action personal injury litigation involving several defendants, the court issued procedural directions to manage the proceedings efficiently.

The court ordered that the matter be case managed by the same judge and scheduled examinations for discovery of the plaintiff and the Family Law Act claimant.

Plaintiff’s counsel was directed to update productions, circulate request letters for outstanding records, and provide documents received to all defendants.

The court further directed that any motions for production under Rule 30.10 be brought by a specified deadline if responses remained outstanding.

The matter was removed from the assignment court list pending further order.