Nicholas P. Kapelos

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on a snowbank while attempting to enter a taxi.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the purpose and causation tests, finding that while the purpose test was met, the causation test failed because the snowbank was an intervening act and the dominant feature of the incident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $1,812.52 for physiotherapy treatment following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefit, arguing the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of evidence that previous physiotherapy had been beneficial and that the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

The application was dismissed.

Following a trial where the applicant's family law claims were dismissed, the respondent sought her costs on a substantial and full indemnity basis.

The court found that the respondent was the successful party and had made a settlement offer that she beat at trial, entitling her to costs under Rule 18(14).

However, due to credibility concerns regarding both parties, the court declined to award full indemnity costs.

The respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of her offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The applicant and respondent, former unmarried cohabitants, purchased a home together in 2001.

In 2002, the applicant transferred his 50% interest to the respondent.

After their relationship ended in 2013, the applicant sought a 50% interest in the property via resulting or constructive trust, or alternatively, damages for unjust enrichment based on his contributions to home renovations and the respondent's cleaning business.

The court dismissed all claims, finding the 2002 transfer was for valuable consideration, defeating the resulting trust claim.

The unjust enrichment claim failed because the applicant's room and board provided a juristic reason for his contributions, and he failed to prove the value of his labour or materials.

Claims for a joint family venture and conversion of personal property were also dismissed.

This endorsement addresses a solicitor's unacceptable conduct in circumventing court approval for a minor's settlement.

The solicitor sought to dismiss a minor's claim without payment after a previous judge refused approval due to deficiencies and explicitly stated that approval was required even after the minor attained majority.

The solicitor ignored the court's order and obtained a consent dismissal, disbursing funds without judicial oversight.

The court found this a flagrant breach of Rule 7, disrespectful to the court process, and contrary to established case law requiring court approval for settlements entered into while a party is a minor, regardless of subsequent attainment of majority.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically a treatment plan for physiotherapy services in the amount of $1,797.00.

The insurer denied the benefit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant had tried physiotherapy pre-accident without significant benefit and that insurer examinations did not recommend it.

The application was dismissed and no interest was awarded.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissal of their negligence claim against the City of Toronto arising from a fall on a sidewalk.

The appellant sustained injuries when her foot landed on a missing paving stone on a narrow strip adjacent to the concrete sidewalk.

The motion judge found that the City had availed itself of the statutory defences under section 42(3) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, having undertaken reasonable steps to prevent the state of non-repair and having no knowledge of the defect.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal and denied the motion for leave to appeal the costs award.

The plaintiff landlord sought default judgment against the defendant tenant for unpaid rent and damages after the tenant abandoned the commercial premises.

The court awarded net damages for lost revenue and unpaid rent, but dismissed the claim for additional damages related to the alleged fraudulent removal of goods due to insufficient evidence of civil fraud.

The court also granted an amendment to add the tenant's operating name as a defendant and awarded costs.

Following a successful appeal that set aside a default judgment, the appellant requested additional remedies including setting aside the noting in default, lifting a writ of seizure and sale, setting aside costs, and extending the time to file a statement of defence.

The Court of Appeal granted these requests, finding they flowed naturally from the order setting aside the default judgment.

The Court declined the respondents' request to impose a timetable for further procedural steps, leaving such matters to the Superior Court.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding a real estate transaction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's decisions to permit an amendment to the claim for GST, to interpret the Agreement of Purchase and Sale as not requiring formal tender since the respondent was ready, willing, and able to close, and to award costs.

The complainant union filed a complaint alleging that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by repudiating a collective agreement.

The employer argued that its secretary, who signed the agreement, lacked the authority to do so.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the secretary had both real and ostensible authority to bind the company, given his position, past signing of agreements, and the employer's representations during bargaining.

The Board declared the collective agreement valid and binding, directing the employer to apply its terms retroactively.