Renata Karolina Antoniuk

The court considered a motion for approval of a settlement in a civil action arising from the surreptitious recording and distribution of a nude video of a minor student at school.

The court found the materials filed in support of the settlement insufficient, particularly regarding the impact on the minor plaintiff, the litigation risks, and the rationale for the settlement quantum.

The court directed the parties to provide further and better materials addressing these deficiencies before the settlement could be approved.

During a trial on liability for injuries sustained by the plaintiff while pitching in a school softball tournament, the plaintiff brought a motion to exclude the expert evidence of the defendant school board's proposed expert on student physical health and safety.

The proposed expert opined that the standard of care was strictly defined by the OPHEA Safety Guidelines, which did not mandate face masks for pitchers.

The court excluded the expert evidence, finding it was not necessary as the jury could understand the facts and assess the foreseeable risks without her assistance.

Furthermore, the court found the evidence would likely distort the fact-finding process because the expert acted as an advocate, rigidly adhered to an incorrect legal standard, and offered opinions beyond her expertise.

The defendant, Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board, brought a motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages in a personal injury action, seeking to have liability tried first.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate that bifurcation would certainly dispose of issues, shorten proceedings, or result in substantial cost savings.

The court also found that the issues were not clearly severable due to overlap in evidence and witnesses, and that bifurcating a jury trial would unduly prejudice the plaintiffs, given the right to a single jury and the practical difficulties of separate jury trials.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused during the examination for discovery of the defendant's representative and to require a re-attendance.

The underlying action involves a slip and fall at the defendant's health club.

The court ordered the defendant to answer questions regarding post-accident communications about anti-slip material and inspection policies, finding them relevant to the pleadings.

The court also ordered the defendant to re-attend for a virtual examination for up to two hours to answer questions arising from undertakings and refusals.

The plaintiffs in a motor vehicle accident case moved to amend their statement of claim to add three new defendants after the presumptive two-year limitation period had expired.

The proposed defendants opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover their involvement within the limitation period.

The court granted the motion, finding that there were issues of credibility and fact regarding when the plaintiffs ought to have discovered the claims, which warranted a trial.

The proposed defendants were granted leave to plead a limitation defence.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for negligence, occupier's liability, and breach of the Liquor Licence Act after the plaintiff suffered a severe spinal injury in a mosh pit at a heavy metal concert.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court found no evidence that the injury was reasonably foreseeable or that the defendants breached the standard of care, noting that security guards were present and actively monitoring the crowd.

The court granted the summary judgment motion and dismissed the action.

The moving parties, two of the plaintiffs in a civil assault action, sought an order to relieve them from the deemed undertaking rule to use a security video, obtained through discovery, for a criminal prosecution against the individual defendants (security guards) and a police officer.

The court found that the deemed undertaking rule applied to the video as it was disclosed under compulsion, despite being provided early for tactical reasons.

The court further determined that the public interest in pursuing a criminal investigation did not outweigh the prejudice to the disclosing party (20 Vic Management Inc.) and its co-defendants, particularly the tactical leverage a concurrent criminal investigation could create in the civil action.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an order requiring the defendant private investigation firm to produce a surveillance report and video.

The defendant had been hired by the plaintiff's former spouse during matrimonial proceedings to conduct surveillance on the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of privacy and sought production of the report.

The defendant claimed the report was protected by litigation privilege and common law case-by-case privilege.

The court held that litigation privilege from the spent matrimonial proceedings did not apply to this unrelated civil action.

The court also applied the Wigmore criteria and found that the defendant failed to establish a common law privilege.

The motion for production was granted.