6 total
Condominium corporations' applications to amend declarations to prohibit short-term rentals dismissed as no statutory inconsistency found.
Two condominium corporations brought applications to amend their declarations to remove provisions that expressly permitted short-term transient rentals.
The corporations argued the provisions were inconsistent with the Condominium Act, 1998, the applicable zoning by-law, and a restrictive covenant on title.
The court dismissed the applications, finding no inconsistency.
The declarations did not impermissibly grant rights but rather defined the scope of use restrictions, and the inability of the boards to make rules restricting short-term leasing was mandated by the Act's requirement that rules be consistent with the declaration.
The court held that any desired changes to the declarations should be pursued through the owner approval process under section 107 of the Act, rather than by alleging an inconsistency under section 109.
Scooter-related injury not directly caused by taxi use; accident benefits declaration refused.
The plaintiff brought a motion under rule 21.01 seeking a declaration that her injuries constituted an "accident" under s.2(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, thereby entitling her to statutory accident benefits.
The incident occurred when the plaintiff was injured while a taxi driver attempted to move a motorized scooter to transport a passenger to a wheelchair-accessible taxi.
The court applied the two-part test requiring that the injury arise from the use or operation of an automobile and that such use directly cause the impairment.
Although the taxi was being used for its intended purpose, the court held the injury was caused by the driver's handling of the scooter, an intervening act unrelated to the use or operation of the taxi.
The motion for a declaratory order was therefore dismissed.
Slip and fall on ice after safely exiting a taxi is not an automobile accident.
The respondent slipped and fell on ice after exiting a taxi cab and walking towards her hotel.
She applied for statutory accident benefits, and an arbitrator initially found the incident constituted an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The insurer appealed.
The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent had safely exited the vehicle and commenced walking before she fell.
The use or operation of the taxi cab was not a direct cause of her impairment, and the incident fell outside the scope of the 'accident' definition.
Slip and fall on ice after exiting a taxi constitutes an accident under the SABS.
The applicant was injured when she slipped and fell on ice after exiting a taxi cab.
She applied for statutory accident benefits, which the insurer denied on the basis that the fall was not an 'accident' under section 2(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The arbitrator found that the location and orientation of the taxi compelled the applicant to walk around it, leading her to the ice.
The arbitrator concluded that the use or operation of the taxi was a direct cause of the impairment, satisfying the definition of an accident.
Insurer's motion to compel further medical examinations dismissed as unnecessary given existing independent medical opinions.
The insurer brought a motion to compel the insured to attend further psychological and orthopaedic examinations under section 42 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The insured opposed the motion, arguing the notice for the orthopaedic examination was void and the examinations were not reasonably necessary.
The arbitrator found the notice for the orthopaedic examination was void because it was served less than five business days before the appointment.
Furthermore, the arbitrator held that further examinations were not reasonably necessary, as the insurer had already obtained up-to-date, independent medical opinions that concluded the insured's ongoing complaints were not accident-related.
The motion was dismissed, and the insurer was ordered to pay $500 in costs.
Appeal from order allowing late delivery of a jury notice dismissed; no unconscionable delay found.
The plaintiff, an amateur boxer who suffered a brain injury, sued several defendants.
After pleadings were closed and discoveries commenced, the Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed as litigation guardian and retained new counsel.
The new counsel moved to extend the time for filing a jury notice, which was granted by the master and upheld on appeal.
The defendants appealed to the Divisional Court.
The majority dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle, no unconscionable delay, and no real possibility of prejudice to the defendants.
A dissenting judge argued that the current case law on late jury notices is flawed and should be changed.
