Nedjo Bozalo

The appellant suffered a catastrophic spinal cord injury in a cycling accident on a dirt path adjacent to Stone Church Road in Hamilton.

The City brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal under s. 44(8) of the Municipal Act, 2001, which exempts municipalities from liability for damages caused by construction, obstruction, or erection on untravelled portions of highways.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the accident occurred on an untravelled portion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge applied the wrong legal test.

The correct test requires determining whether the portion of highway was commonly and habitually used by the public for travel, not whether such use was reasonably foreseeable.

The court found the dirt path was commonly and regularly used by pedestrians and cyclists and therefore constituted a travelled portion of the highway, placing it outside the statutory exemption.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successful summary judgment motion brought by the City of Hamilton, which resulted in the dismissal of the plaintiff's action.

Following the parties' agreement on costs, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay the City of Hamilton an all-inclusive amount of $200,000 for the action and summary judgment motion.

The City of Hamilton moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for injuries sustained while cycling on an off-road path adjacent to Stone Church Road East.

The plaintiff, Otto Bello, suffered complete tetraplegia after riding into a culvert.

The City argued the claim was barred by s.44(8) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as the accident occurred on an untravelled portion of a highway.

The court found that clearly marked bicycle lanes were available, and the plaintiff chose an informal, untravelled path.

The court concluded that it was not reasonably foreseeable that cyclists would use the off-road path instead of the provided bicycle lanes, thus granting summary judgment to the City and dismissing the plaintiff's action.

The appellant, Marguerite Crete, appealed a motion judge's declaration that a snow removal provision in her lease was not inconsistent with the Residential Tenancies Act, making her responsible for snow clearing in areas exclusively used by her.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's finding that the snow removal provision was not inconsistent with the RTA, despite finding errors in the motion judge's interpretation of certain RTA sections.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming the tenant's responsibility for snow clearing in exclusively used areas.

The plaintiff sued the defendant municipality for injuries sustained after tripping on beach stones scattered on a public sidewalk.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the sidewalk was not in an unreasonable state of non-repair and that it had no knowledge of the stones.

The court granted the defendant's motion, finding that the presence of the stones did not constitute an unreasonable state of non-repair as they could be easily avoided by a person exercising ordinary care.

Furthermore, the court held that the municipality was exempt from liability under s. 44(3)(a) of the Municipal Act because it did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, about the stones on the sidewalk.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The applicant claimed entitlement to a physical treatment balance, an orthopaedic assessment, and a chronic pain assessment, as well as a special award and interest.

The Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant failed to prove the proposed treatment and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

Specifically, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had already received two OHIP-funded orthopaedic assessments, which constituted reasonably available medical benefits under another plan or law.

Furthermore, the evidence did not support the necessity of a chronic pain assessment, as the applicant's pain was managed with medication and he had not sought specialized chronic pain treatment.