N. Marotta

The plaintiff commenced an action and a human rights application against the defendants following his apprehension under the Mental Health Act.

The defendant police services board made a global offer to settle, which required the plaintiff to sign a full and final release, consent to the dismissal of the action, and withdraw the human rights application.

The plaintiff completed the consent and withdrawal but refused to sign the release.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce the settlement under Rule 49.09.

The court found that the plaintiff had accepted the non-severable terms of the offer and ordered the settlement enforced, dismissing the action against the police services board.

At a case conference regarding the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on an expired limitation period, counsel for LawPro requested a one-month adjournment to review the file and determine its position.

The defendants did not object.

The court granted the adjournment and scheduled a further case conference to establish a timetable for the motion.

The plaintiff was injured while attempting a back flip at the defendant's indoor trampoline park.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the electronic waiver signed by the plaintiff at a kiosk barred the action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the defendant took reasonable steps to bring the terms of the waiver to the plaintiff's attention, given the plaintiff's uncontroverted evidence that he was rushed through the process.

A former solicitor brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a professional negligence claim arising from an alleged failure to pursue statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff alleged the solicitor negligently failed to challenge the insurer’s termination of income replacement benefits within the two-year limitation period under the Insurance Act.

The court found the insurer had abandoned any limitation defence and that the benefits had not actually terminated during the solicitor’s retainer.

Claims relating to attendant care and housekeeping benefits were also untenable because the solicitor was retained more than 104 weeks after the accident, beyond the maximum eligibility period under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

In addition, the plaintiff had produced no expert evidence regarding the applicable standard of care for professional negligence.

The action against the solicitor was dismissed on summary judgment.