Nicole Carolyn Chutko

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff’s slip-and-fall action for failure to provide notice within ten days as required by the Municipal Act, 2001.

The plaintiff argued for an exception based on reasonable excuse and lack of prejudice to the municipality.

The court found that the plaintiff could rely on a late-served expert report for the motion, but that the admissibility of both parties’ expert evidence was not established.

The court concluded that the conflicting expert evidence on the plaintiff’s capacity and reasonable excuse created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

Both the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff’s request for reverse summary judgment were dismissed.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

This endorsement addresses the adjournment of a civil trial due to unforeseen health issues of defence counsel.

The court granted leave for the advance examination of the defendants to preserve evidence, adjourned the trial sine die, and denied the plaintiff's motion to strike the jury notice without prejudice.

The plaintiff was awarded costs for trial preparation "thrown away" due to the adjournment, with a specific timetable for submissions.

The plaintiff sued the municipality for negligence after tripping and falling in a pothole on a residential road.

The parties agreed on damages of $100,000, leaving liability as the sole issue.

The court applied the four-step test for municipal non-repair under the Municipal Act.

The action was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to provide reliable evidence of the pothole's dimensions, thereby failing to prove that the road was in a state of non-repair that posed an unreasonable risk of harm.

The court noted that had liability been found, the plaintiff would have been 15 percent contributorily negligent for failing to pay reasonable attention to the roadway surface.

The plaintiffs, having settled a slip and fall claim for $7,500 after 75% contributory negligence, sought costs of over $43,000.

The defendant argued the claim was disproportionate.

The court disallowed several disbursements, including ATE insurance and various treatment costs, and significantly reduced the claimed legal fees, fixing total costs at $14,926.57.

The court also declined to intervene on the prejudgment interest calculation previously set by another judge.