Nadine Nasr

The plaintiff was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision.

The owner of the vehicle, a rental car company (2180571 Ontario Ltd. operating as "Practicar"), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim against it, arguing it was not vicariously liable for the driver's negligence.

Co-defendants, The Personal Insurance Company and PAFCO Insurance Company, opposed the motion, seeking a finding of vicarious liability against Practicar.

The court found that the individual who rented the car, despite using a fraudulent identity, was a "lessee" under the Highway Traffic Act.

Consequently, her consent to the negligent driver operating the vehicle was deemed the owner's consent, making Practicar vicariously liable.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and claims against the insurers were dismissed.

The plaintiff, Joroga Real Estate Ltd., initiated an action against its insurer, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, and the City of Toronto for damages resulting from a water main rupture.

State Farm brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against it or limit its coverage obligations.

The court dismissed State Farm's motion, finding that granting partial summary judgment would lead to duplicative proceedings, a risk of inconsistent factual findings with the ongoing negligence claim against the City, and would not advance the litigation as a whole in a timely, proportionate, and affordable manner.

The court emphasized that partial summary judgment should be reserved for discrete, standalone issues.

The defendants, an architectural firm and a project manager, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim, arguing it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act.

The plaintiff's claim stemmed from condensation and ice issues in his luxury home, which he attributed to faulty windows and ventilation designed and installed by the defendants.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiff's claim was not discovered more than two years before the action was issued.

The court emphasized the plaintiff's reasonable reliance on the defendants' superior expertise and their ongoing efforts to resolve the problem, concluding that he lacked sufficient information to believe he had an actionable claim until July 2016.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of a third party claim arising from a tug-of-war injury.

The plaintiff was severely injured during a recreational tug-of-war at a campground when his arm became caught in a loop in the rope, resulting in amputation of his forearm.

The appellants sought contribution and indemnity from the third parties who participated in the game.

The motion judge dismissed the third party claim, finding that the third parties owed no duty of care to the plaintiff.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that the third parties did not fall within any of the circumstances that would impose a positive duty to act, and that the injury was not a reasonably foreseeable result of participation in a recreational tug-of-war game.

Following the successful summary judgment motions by six third parties dismissing the third party claims against them, the court determined the costs to be awarded.

The defendants argued that costs for a prior summary judgment motion and an appeal should not be included.

The court found that the preparation for the prior motion and attendance at the appeal were incidental to the third party claims and awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale, rejecting a request for substantial indemnity costs.

The defendants in a personal injury action arising from a recreational tug-of-war game brought a third-party claim for contribution and indemnity against several other participants in the game.

Six of the third parties moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim against them.

The court applied the Anns/Cooper test and found that the participants did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, as they did not organize the event, create the risk, or have a special relationship requiring them to take positive action to prevent injury.

The court granted the motions and dismissed the third-party claims.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' personal injury action on summary judgment, the court determined the costs payable.

The defendants sought costs from the plaintiffs and argued the plaintiffs should also be liable for the costs of the third parties, whom the defendants had joined.

The court applied the general rule that an unsuccessful plaintiff is not responsible for the costs of third parties they did not sue, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from this rule.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants $44,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the defendants were ordered to pay the full costs claimed by the various third parties, totaling over $133,000.

The defendants moved to lift an existing stay and dismiss two civil actions arising from a motor vehicle accident and a long‑term disability claim.

The plaintiff had repeatedly failed to comply with prior court orders requiring production of records, completion of undertakings, and payment of an $18,000 costs order.

The court considered its authority under Rules 57.03 and 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss proceedings for failure to comply with interlocutory orders.

Although the plaintiff’s evidence explaining non‑payment of costs was inadequate and the history of non‑compliance was significant, the court held that immediate dismissal would be disproportionate given the plaintiff’s self‑represented status and the nature of the claims.

The court granted a final opportunity to cure the default by paying the outstanding costs with interest by a specified deadline, failing which the stay would be lifted and the actions automatically dismissed.