Michelle Farb

Oscar Sun, a minor, suffered catastrophic injuries after being hit by a car driven by Sergio Ferreira after exiting a TTC bus.

The plaintiffs (Sun, Chen, Sun) sued Ferreira, TTC, and the City of Toronto.

Ferreira also brought a third-party claim against TTC and the City.

The City, TTC, and Donald Carter brought two motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action against them and Ferreira's third-party claim, arguing the claims were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court dismissed both motions, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the discoverability of the claims and whether it was appropriate to commence legal action earlier, particularly concerning the alleged negligent design of the bus stop and crosswalks.

The court also noted concerns about partial summary judgment.

This is a costs decision following a personal injury trial where the jury found the Abitong defendants 5% liable and awarded general damages of $10,000 to the main plaintiff.

After applying the statutory deductible, the plaintiffs received no recovery.

The Abitong defendants sought costs, having made an offer to settle by dismissal without costs.

The court awarded the Abitong defendants $175,000 in all-inclusive costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered factors under Rule 57, including the result achieved, complexity, and proportionality.

It addressed the plaintiffs' objections regarding trial length due to defence counsel's conduct, excessive time claims, high disbursements, and the use of in-house counsel, affirming that costs for salaried counsel should be assessed as if independent outside counsel were retained.

Following a jury trial where the plaintiff was awarded $62,500 in general damages for injuries sustained in a rear-end motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a threshold motion under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court reviewed the medical evidence and surveillance footage, noting inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony and evidence of her ability to perform daily activities.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove her injuries substantially interfered with her usual activities of daily living.

The defendants' motion was granted, barring the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss.

During a trial, the plaintiffs sought a mid-trial ruling to prevent the defendants from asserting the defence of inevitable or unavoidable accident, arguing it was not specifically pleaded as required by Rule 25.07(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court ruled that a general denial of negligence in the statement of defence was sufficient to allow the defendants to raise the unavoidable accident defence, as there was no material difference in the legal test or onus, and the pleadings provided adequate notice to the plaintiffs.

During a jury trial for a personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff brought a motion to exclude portions of the defence orthopedic expert's proposed testimony.

The plaintiff objected to the expert testifying about symptom exaggeration and the theory of chronic pain syndrome (central sensitization).

Applying the Mohan and Abbey frameworks, the court allowed the expert to testify regarding symptom exaggeration, finding it within his clinical expertise.

However, the court excluded his opinions on central sensitization, ruling he lacked the necessary qualifications and his evidence failed the gatekeeper cost-benefit analysis.

The expert was also restricted from testifying about undisclosed research and cautioned to present his evidence professionally.

During a personal injury jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendants sought to introduce surveillance videos of the plaintiff from 2013 and 2015 as substantive evidence.

The plaintiff objected, arguing the videos lacked probative value because she had already testified she could perform the recorded activities on a 'good day,' and that their admission would be prejudicial.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding the videos relevant to assessing the degree of her impairment and concluding that their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The 2013 and 2015 surveillance videos were ruled admissible.