Miranda Serravalle

The plaintiffs were involved in a motor vehicle accident caused by a pothole.

They initially sued the City of Toronto and 'John Doe Maintenance Company'.

After the limitation period expired, the plaintiffs successfully moved before a Master to substitute the Region of York and Brennan Paving as defendants, relying on the doctrine of misnomer.

The defendants appealed.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the appeal, finding that the Master erred in law by extending the doctrine of misnomer too far.

The court held that the 'litigating finger' did not clearly point to the proposed defendants, as the Statement of Claim identified the accident location in a different municipality, and it was unreasonable to expect the proposed defendants to connect the claim to a notice letter sent nearly two years earlier.

The plaintiff's residential oil tank leaked, causing a significant environmental spill into Sturgeon Lake.

The plaintiff sued the fuel distributor (Thompson Fuels), the regulatory authority (TSSA), and the tank manufacturer (Granby) for negligence.

The court found Thompson Fuels 40% liable for failing to conduct a mandatory comprehensive inspection before delivering fuel.

The plaintiff was found 60% contributorily negligent for improper installation, failing to maintain the tank, introducing water into the tank, and delaying reporting the leak.

Claims against the TSSA and Granby were dismissed.

The court also assessed the reasonableness of the extensive remediation costs and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for statutory contribution under the Environmental Protection Act.

The third party moved for summary judgment to dismiss the defendants' third party claim against him.

The plaintiff was injured when he fell from a rented boom lift after instructing the third party to remove a pin from the machine.

The third party argued he was merely following the plaintiff's instructions and could not be found negligent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a genuine issue for trial existed regarding whether it was reasonable for the third party to follow the instructions without making inquiries or assessing the risk.