Peter William Denton

This trial determined damages for the plaintiff, Katrina Pisani, who sustained injuries in a rear-end motor vehicle collision where liability was admitted by the defendant, Holly McDaniel.

The central issue was whether the plaintiff's injuries met the "permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function" threshold under the Insurance Act.

The court found that the plaintiff's chronic pain, sleep disruption, fatigue, irritability, depression, and anxiety constituted permanent, serious, and important impairments, thereby meeting the threshold.

The court awarded general damages, past loss of income, loss of competitive advantage, past and future loss of housekeeping and home maintenance ability, and costs of future care.

The claim for out-of-pocket expenses was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

This is an appeal of the dismissal of a medical malpractice claim.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient for appellate review, failing to analyze essential components of the plaintiff's theory of liability and explain his findings on the standard of care.

Additionally, the trial judge erred in his contradictory treatment of a formal admission regarding the abscess location, effectively disregarding it despite having previously denied a motion to withdraw it.

This resulted in an unfair trial for the plaintiff.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The defendant, Ljudmilla Jefremova, brought a motion under Rule 51.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to clarify or withdraw an admission made in a Reply to Request to Admit concerning the location of an abscess in a medical negligence action.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

The court declined to rule on the interpretation of the admission at this stage, finding it should be considered after trial submissions.

Applying the four-part test for withdrawing an admission, the court found no triable issue regarding the truth of the admission itself, only its interpretation.

Consequently, the motion to withdraw the admission was dismissed.

The defendants, Peter Gobrail and Hardscapes Interlock Design, brought a motion to transfer their action from Barrie (Central East Region) to Brampton (Central West Region).

The plaintiff, Basil Mkalaf, opposed the transfer.

The court, applying Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles from Chatterson et al. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd., found that Brampton was a "significantly better" venue.

The decision considered factors such as where the accident occurred, the residence of parties and witnesses, and the convenience of the court, outweighing the plaintiff's concerns about potential trial delays.

The motion to transfer to Brampton was granted on terms related to pre-trial scheduling.

This decision addresses costs arising from a motion concerning discovery refusals.

The plaintiffs sought answers to 13 questions, succeeding on 3.

The court found success on the motion to be divided and, in the absence of settlement offers, ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The court also clarified that allegations of improper conduct by plaintiffs' counsel, not being determinative of the motion's outcome, would not influence the costs award.

The plaintiffs sued the City of Greater Sudbury for injuries sustained by Linda Franklin after she fell on an icy, snow-covered parking lot in Delki Dozzi Park.

The court determined that the lesser duty of care under section 4 of the Occupiers' Liability Act did not apply, as the plaintiff was not using a marked recreational trail or venturing off it in the course of such use.

Applying the general duty of care under section 3(1), the court found the City negligent for failing to maintain the parking lot, post warnings, or block access, given the foreseeable public use of other park areas accessible via the lot.

However, the plaintiff was found contributorily negligent for failing to exercise caution given the weather conditions.

Liability was apportioned 60% to the City and 40% to the plaintiff.

The court denied the plaintiff's claim for loss of income due to early retirement, finding she failed to mitigate damages as her injuries did not prevent her from working.

The plaintiff, Gregory Cannon, brought a slip-and-fall claim against Cemcor Apartments Inc. after sustaining a broken leg in the apartment building's parking lot.

The plaintiff alleged the landlord failed to properly maintain the parking lot in a safe condition during winter.

The defendant had a verbal contract with a snow removal contractor, Myles Property Management Inc., who was later released from the action.

The trial proceeded solely on the issue of liability.

The court found that the defendant had a reasonable winter maintenance policy in place, considering the conditions in Northern Ontario, and that this policy was reasonably followed.

The plaintiff's and his witnesses' credibility regarding the extent of hazardous conditions was questioned, with the court finding only an isolated slippery spot.

Consequently, the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant breached its obligations under the Occupier's Liability Act, and the claim was dismissed.