Michael Raymond Switzer

The defendants moved for an order transferring this action from Perth to Oshawa, arguing Oshawa was a significantly better venue due to the contract being entered there, vehicle servicing in Durham Region, and witness locations.

The plaintiff opposed, citing inconvenience for his family witnesses in the East Region.

The court applied Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure holistically, finding Oshawa significantly better given the transaction's nexus, service locations, and defendant witness locations, despite the plaintiff's current residence.

The motion was granted, transferring the action to Oshawa.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment in a motor vehicle accident case, alleging various trial errors constituted a miscarriage of justice, including leading questions by plaintiff's counsel, mention of independent medical examinations, discussion between counsel and plaintiff after cross-examination, mention of insurance, admission of opinion evidence from a body shop manager regarding vehicle speed, and the trial judge's charge excluding a zero award of general damages.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal the costs award, alleging the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to proportionality.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the leave to appeal on costs, finding no error in the trial judge's handling of the trial events or costs decision.

This decision addresses a cost endorsement following an 11-day jury trial where the plaintiff's negligence claim against the defendant, Sears Canada Inc., was largely unsuccessful.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs against the plaintiff and a portion of costs against OHIP.

The court dismissed the claim for costs against OHIP, finding that its statutory subrogation claim was not assessed and had no significant impact on the trial.

For the plaintiff, the court considered the defendant's Rule 49 offer to settle, the overriding principle of reasonableness, and various factors under Rule 57.01(1), including the complexity of the case, the amount claimed and recovered, and counsel rates.

The court fixed a reasonable cost award against the plaintiff at $200,000, inclusive of HST, to be paid within 30 days.

The plaintiff brought a motion to remove Michael Switzer as lawyer of record for the defendant Mario Ascani's insurer, State Farm Insurance, due to a disqualifying conflict of interest.

The conflict arose from the same law firm representing State Farm in both a tort action against Ascani and an accident benefits arbitration for the plaintiff.

The court found that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption of confidential information sharing within the firm, and that the firm was in a disqualifying conflict, ordering the removal of counsel.

The defendant Graham McKeddie moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim against him, which was based on social host liability.

The plaintiff, a minor injured as a passenger in a car driven by Graham's son, supported the dismissal.

The defendant Echelon General Insurance Company, a party under uninsured/underinsured provisions, cross-claimed against Graham alleging social host liability.

The court applied the framework from Childs v. Desormeaux and the summary judgment principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin.

Despite conflicting evidence regarding the host's interaction with the guests, the court found insufficient evidence to establish a paternalistic relationship or any other basis for a positive duty of care on the host's part as a social host.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the claim against the moving defendant.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, the court ruled on post-verdict issues including the statutory threshold and deductibles.

The court found the plaintiff met the threshold for permanent serious impairment due to a somatic symptom disorder.

However, the court held that the increased statutory deductibles enacted in August 2015 applied retrospectively, which reduced the jury's non-pecuniary and Family Law Act damage awards to zero.

After applying set-offs for statutory accident benefits, judgment was issued for the plaintiffs in the amount of $56,294.98.

The defendant plumbing contractor brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a negligence action arising from residential flooding allegedly caused by a defective toilet supply hose installed during construction.

The moving party argued there was no evidence that any breach of the Ontario Building Code or absence of CSA certification caused the loss.

The court held that the plaintiff had adduced sufficient evidence of negligence, including expert evidence regarding a defective component and discovery evidence suggesting inadequate selection and oversight of plumbing parts.

Applying the summary judgment principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin and the causation framework from Clements v. Clements, the court found that a trier of fact could reasonably infer a substantial connection between the contractor’s conduct and the damage.

A genuine issue requiring a trial existed.

The plaintiffs brought a summary judgment motion seeking recovery of property damages arising from a motor vehicle collision in which the defendant driver lost control and struck them and their property.

The insurer sought to rely on the existing statement of claim or, alternatively, to amend it to add property damage claims after the two‑year limitation period had expired.

The court held that the statement of claim contained no material facts or relief relating to property damage as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The proposed amendment would introduce a new cause of action that was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply because no promise not to rely on the limitation period was established and there was no reliance.

The motion for summary judgment and amendment was dismissed.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a motion seeking multiple discovery-related orders, including further production of documents, clarification of undertakings and refusals, and a second medical examination.

The court emphasized compliance with Rule 37.10(10) of the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring a refusals and undertakings chart and criticized the moving parties for failing to provide one.

Several document production requests were dismissed as irrelevant or disproportionate, while limited additional disclosure was ordered, including production of an unredacted medical file and updated affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff was also ordered to attend a neuropsychological independent medical examination.

The decision highlights proportionality and procedural compliance in discovery motions.

Following a motion where the defendant sought summary judgment dismissing a slip and fall claim and leave to amend its statement of defence, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs successfully resisted the summary judgment motion, which constituted the primary issue, while the defendant succeeded in obtaining leave to amend its defence to plead that it was not an occupier under the Occupiers’ Liability Act.

Applying the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that success was divided but favoured the plaintiffs.

Substantial indemnity costs were declined as the defendant’s motion was not unreasonable.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded, adjusted for divided success.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a slip‑and‑fall claim, arguing it was not an occupier under the Occupiers’ Liability Act because the walkway where the plaintiff fell was not included in its lease.

The plaintiffs argued there were genuine issues requiring trial regarding whether the defendant exercised sufficient control over the walkway to qualify as an occupier and whether it could be liable under common law negligence.

The court held that evidence showing employees inspected and salted the walkway and that the entrance was used almost exclusively by the defendant’s customers raised a genuine issue requiring a trial on occupier status and negligence.

The court also granted leave to the defendant to amend its statement of defence to plead that it was not an occupier.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.