Peter F. Yaniszewski

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to set aside a 2014 consent dismissal and underlying settlement of a personal injury action.

The settlement was negotiated by their former lawyer, who misappropriated the funds and failed to obtain court approval under Rule 7.08 for the injured plaintiff, who was a party under disability.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding she correctly applied the Book factors.

The insurer had acted in good faith without knowledge of the disability, and the settlement itself was not unreasonable.

The court held that the lawyer's fraud did not impugn the reasonableness of the settlement from the perspective of the tort claim.

The plaintiffs moved to set aside a dismissal order and a full and final release from a 2013 settlement, arguing the injured plaintiff was under a disability and the settlement was never approved by the court under Rule 7.08.

The plaintiffs' former lawyer had fraudulently settled the action without their knowledge and misappropriated the funds.

The court found the plaintiff was under a disability at the time, but declined to set aside the settlement because the tort insurer acted in good faith, was unaware of the disability, and the settlement itself was not unconscionable.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.

The defendants appealed a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff $343,560 for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by refusing leave to call two experts, inadequately instructing the jury on future income loss, and that the general damages award was excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's rulings.

The plaintiffs cross-appealed the costs award, arguing the trial judge misapprehended that trial preparation time was duplicated.

The Court of Appeal allowed the cross-appeal in part, adjusting the costs reduction for trial preparation.

The appellant appealed an order staying her Ontario action.

On appeal, she raised a new issue regarding whether her claim against the respondents was barred by Quebec limitation periods, which would affect the juridical advantage analysis.

Because there was no evidentiary record on this issue, the Court of Appeal amended the lower court's order to provide for a conditional stay of the Ontario action pending the final determination of the limitation period question under Quebec law.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action against the respondent insurance company.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no credible issue for trial as the plain words of the insurance policy's limitation period could not be avoided.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $5,000.