Morgan Martin

This motion sought court approval for a proposed settlement of $45,000 for a minor plaintiff who suffered an ankle fracture during exercise instruction at a gym.

The defendants denied liability, raising issues of causation and damages.

The court approved the settlement, finding it reasonable, fair, and in the minor's best interests, considering the litigation risks and the minor's recovery.

The court also approved the contingency fees and disbursements, noting their role in providing access to justice.

The defendant Roberts Bros.

Sheet Metal Contractors Ltd. (RBSMC) brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and permit the filing of a statement of defence and crossclaim.

The court declined to sign the requested order because RBSMC failed to comply with Rule 37.12.1(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a notice of non-opposition from all responding parties for an "unopposed" motion to proceed in writing.

The court emphasized that co-defendants are also affected parties, particularly when crossclaims are contemplated, and their formal non-opposition is necessary, unlike the simpler procedure under Rule 19.03(2) which relies solely on plaintiff consent.

The court provided guidance on alternative procedural routes for RBSMC to pursue the motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 32.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order for a site visit and permission for his expert to inspect, test, and potentially destructively test one of the defendant's windows.

This was necessary for an occupier's liability action where the original shattered window was no longer available, and its nature and condition were central to the litigation.

The defendant did not provide responding materials.

The court granted the motion, finding the inspection necessary for a proper determination of the issue and that any potential prejudice to the defendant (e.g., needing to replace a destroyed window) could be compensated later.

The plaintiffs in a personal injury action sought a redaction order to conceal the amount of a settlement and advance payments, as well as expert reports on damages, from the public record.

The motion was dismissed.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a serious risk to important public interests such as settlement privilege, confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements, or the privacy of litigants, as required by the Sierra Club test.

The extensive media attention was not considered a measure of public interest.

Following a successful summary judgment motion by the defendant, Paragon Protection Ltd., the court considered written submissions on costs.

Paragon sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, but the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding no reasonable ground for substantial indemnity.

The plaintiff, Clifton A. Damallie, was ordered to pay $7,500, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, to Paragon Protection Ltd. within 60 days.

The moving defendants sought a determination that the substantive law governing liability for a skiing accident occurring in Colorado should be the law of Colorado rather than Ontario.

The plaintiff argued that Ontario law should apply because the parties’ relationship, contractual documents, and supervisory duties arose in Ontario.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Tolofson v. Jensen, the court held that the lex loci delicti rule governs tort claims and that the substantive law of the place where the tort occurred generally applies.

The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting departure from that rule despite the parties’ Ontario connections.

The liability issues, including negligence, standard of care, causation, and contributory negligence, were therefore to be determined under Colorado law.