R. Cooper

The plaintiff was injured when a snow thrower tire rim exploded, causing a laceration to his shin.

The defendants admitted liability for the laceration but disputed the plaintiff's claim that he subsequently developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS).

The court found that the plaintiff did develop CRPS as a result of the incident, which permanently impacted his ability to work full-time.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments that the plaintiff's damages should be reduced due to pre-existing conditions, a subsequent motor vehicle accident, or a failure to mitigate.

The court awarded damages for non-pecuniary loss, past and future loss of income, future care costs, and Family Law Act claims, and declined to deduct disability benefits received by the plaintiff.

A demolition contractor sought partial summary judgment in a construction lien action for unpaid invoices relating to demolition services, crushed concrete, and other project work.

The defendants opposed the motion and advanced set‑off claims alleging defective granular material and erroneous payment for environmental soil remediation.

The court applied the summary judgment framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin and concluded there was no genuine issue requiring trial regarding most of the indebtedness.

The evidence established that the crushed concrete met contractual specifications and that soil remediation constituted agreed extras billed at unit rates rather than part of the lump sum contract.

The set‑off claims lacked merit and partial summary judgment was granted for the majority of the amount claimed.

The Ministry of Labour charged the City of Guelph with failing to ensure a workplace wall was safe under section 25(1)(e) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and charged an architect and engineer with providing negligent or incompetent advice under section 31(2) of the Act.

The charges arose from a concrete wall collapse in 2009 that killed a student, five years after the project's completion in 2004.

All defendants moved to dismiss the charges as statute-barred under section 69 of the Act, which provides a one-year limitation period from the last act or default.

The court distinguished between the charges: the architect and engineer's charges were dismissed as statute-barred because their negligent advice was provided years before the collapse, while the City's charge was permitted to proceed because the employer's duty to maintain a safe workplace is a continuing obligation that extends beyond the construction phase.