Richard Campbell

The plaintiff cyclist was injured when he collided with the defendant's SUV, which was stopped in a crosswalk waiting to make a right turn.

The plaintiff's bicycle brakes failed as he approached the intersection, causing him to swerve and strike the defendant's vehicle.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the negligence action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendant acted as a reasonable and prudent driver and was not negligent in failing to see the plaintiff approaching from a distance or in her reaction to the sudden emergency.

The plaintiff sought damages for inducing a breach of contract and defamation against the defendants, alleging false statements were made to third parties regarding his financial reliability and truck repossession, which hindered his ability to secure financing for a new truck.

The court dismissed the claim for inducing a breach of contract, finding no evidence that the defendant intended to cause a breach or that a valid contract existed at the time of the alleged inducement.

The defamation claim was also dismissed, as the court found the statements made by the defendant were truthful or not defamatory, and there was no evidence of malice or that the statements lowered the plaintiff's reputation.

The court also drew an adverse inference against the plaintiff for failing to call key witnesses and produce financial documentation to support his damages claim.

This motion concerned the distribution of insurance funds and the right to garnish a settlement following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant, Tyler House, sought directions on the interpretation of the Insurance Act regarding priorities and entitlement to insurance monies, a declaration applying the equitable doctrine of marshalling to prioritize his claim, and confirmation of his right to garnish Donald Baird's settlement funds.

The court found that the doctrine of marshalling was not applicable, affirming the pro rata distribution of first-loss insurance funds under section 277 of the Insurance Act.

The court also interpreted ambiguities in Baird's settlement and determined that 20% of Baird's settlement funds, specifically from the income loss portion, were subject to garnishment, applying principles from the Wages Act.

The applicant insurer sought a declaration that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify the insured under a homeowner's policy for a third-party claim arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The underlying claim alleged the insured negligently operated his vehicle and also exited his vehicle to threaten the other driver.

The respondent automobile insurer argued the homeowner's policy might cover the threatening behaviour.

The court held that the insured's actions after exiting the vehicle were incident to the use or operation of a motor vehicle, and therefore fell within the homeowner's policy exclusion for claims arising from the ownership, use, or operation of a motorized vehicle.

The declaration was granted.

The self-represented defendant sought to re-open the issue of costs after his initial written submissions failed to reach the judge.

He claimed costs for time spent attending the seven-day trial and for preparation.

Applying the principles from Fong v. Chan, the court held that a self-represented litigant cannot recover costs for time that any litigant would have to devote to the case, such as attending trial.

The court awarded the defendant $1,330 in costs on a partial indemnity basis for preparation time, travel time, and filing fees.

The plaintiff, Bradley Clayton Hunt, moved for a declaration that he was an "insured person" under the Insurance Act and that the defendant, Peel Mutual Insurance Company, was obligated to defend and indemnify him.

This arose from a motor vehicle collision where Hunt and his daughter were passengers.

Hunt's daughter subsequently sued him, alleging negligent parenting.

The defendant insurer denied coverage, arguing that the allegations of negligence against Hunt did not involve the "use or operation" of the vehicle as required by section 239 of the Insurance Act.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that there was no direct or proximate causal relationship between Hunt's alleged negligent acts (negligent parenting) and the use or operation of the vehicle, thus not triggering the duty to defend.

This endorsement addresses the question of costs following a trial where the plaintiff, Iris R. Powell, recovered $26,700 plus interest against one defendant, Mohamed Afzal Sahadat, but her action was dismissed against other defendants and her co-plaintiff's action was dismissed entirely.

The defendants' counterclaim was also dismissed.

The court applied the principles of costs, including indemnity, encouraging settlements, and discouraging inappropriate behaviour, as well as the factors under Rule 57.01.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that the action should have been brought in Small Claims Court, as Ms. Powell's recovery exceeded the monetary limit.

Ms. Powell's costs against Mr. Sahadat were discounted due to her partial success (unsuccessful on a major claim for business losses) and the complexity she contributed.

Similarly, the costs awarded to the successful defendants (Ishan Dhanapala, Dhana Corporation, and First Financial Consulting Services (FFCS) Ltd.) against Ms. Powell were discounted due to their contribution to the trial's complexity and their unsupportable counterclaim.

The court declined to award personal costs against Ms. Powell's counsel, citing the principle of extreme caution.

Ultimately, Mr. Sahadat was ordered to pay Ms. Powell $19,000 in costs, and Ms. Powell was ordered to pay Ishan Dhanapala, Dhana Corporation, and First Financial Consulting Services (FFCS) Ltd. $23,450 in costs.

The defendant, Brian Radford, brought a summary judgment motion seeking to dismiss a solicitor's negligence action initiated by Anna Gionet.

Radford argued that Gionet's claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, asserting that the two-year limitation period had expired before the action was commenced in January 2014.

Gionet contended that she did not discover her claim until September 2013 and, alternatively, that the limitation period should have been tolled due to her mental and psychological incapacity following her husband's death.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial to determine the actual discovery date of the claim and whether the limitation period was tolled.

The plaintiffs, Iris Powell and The Classic Plus Woman Inc., brought an action against multiple defendants concerning an advance of money.

The court found that Powell advanced $20,000 as a loan to Mohamed Afzal Sahadat, which was then directed to corporations controlled by Ishan Dhanapala for a membership in an investment club related to a condominium project.

Sahadat was obligated to repay $20,000 plus a 39.5% premium ($7,900), totaling $27,900, payable on demand, less $1,100 already repaid.

The court dismissed claims against other defendants (Sean Silva, Ishan Dhanapala, Dhana Corporation, FFCS Ltd.) and found that The Classic Plus Woman Inc. lacked standing.

Powell's claim for consequential business losses was denied, adhering to the principle that damages for failure to pay a debt are generally limited to interest unless special circumstances exist.

The appellants appealed an order of Justice Price of the Superior Court of Justice dated September 28, 2017.

Following questioning from the appellate panel, the appellants abandoned their appeal.

The respondents were awarded costs of the appeal in the all-inclusive amount of $5,000.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for psychological impairments, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guidelines (MIG).

The applicant argued that diagnoses of PTSD and Adjustment Disorder took him outside the MIG.

The Tribunal weighed competing psychological assessments and preferred the respondent's expert, who conducted a response validity test and found no discernible accident-related psychological impairments.

The Tribunal attached minimal weight to the applicant's experts due to methodological flaws and inconsistencies.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, dismissing the claims for psychological assessment and treatment, as well as the claim for an award for unreasonably withheld benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied funding for a $2,495.48 physiotherapy treatment plan on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit was exhausted.

The applicant argued that a pre-existing finger fracture and a psychological injury warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the pre-existing injury hindered recovery and rejected the psychological assessment report as it contradicted the applicant's medical records.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the MIG limits.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRB) and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to IRB as she failed to provide medical evidence demonstrating a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The Tribunal also determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), as she provided no medical diagnosis of chronic pain or psychological impairment to remove her from the MIG cap.

Because the $3,500 MIG limit was already exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

Finally, the Tribunal awarded $250 in costs to the respondent because the applicant and her counsel failed to attend the teleconference hearing without providing reasonable notice, which constituted bad faith.

The applicants and respondents are neighbours who disputed ownership of a patch of land behind the respondents' garage.

The applicants sought an injunction to remove a storage container placed by the respondents, claiming ownership of the land through a self-conveyance.

The respondents cross-applied for a declaration of ownership by adverse possession.

The court traced the historical conveyances and determined that neither party owned the land nor held a right of way over it; rather, it belonged to a third-party neighbour.

Both the application for an injunction and the cross-application for adverse possession were dismissed.

The respondents were seriously injured in a motorcycle accident in Minnesota caused by a state-owned truck operated by a state employee.

Due to Minnesota's statutory damage cap under the Tort Claims Act, they recovered only US$500,000 (inclusive of legal fees), despite damages exceeding that amount.

They sought the shortfall from their Canadian insurer under an underinsured motorist endorsement (OPCF 44R).

The insurer refused, arguing Minnesota was not "inadequately insured" and that legal fees were not recoverable.

The motion judge found in favor of the respondents on both issues.

On appeal, the court held that Minnesota was an inadequately insured motorist despite being self-insured and having statutory immunity, but reversed the finding that legal fees could be claimed as special damages.

Following a trial where the plaintiffs were awarded $70,563 in damages, the successful defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis to the date of its offer to settle and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court found that the defendant was only entitled to partial indemnity costs, as elevated costs require a clear finding of reprehensible conduct, which was absent here.

The court also reduced the costs claimed to account for some inefficiency in the defendant's use of two counsel at trial, ultimately fixing costs at $141,568.73.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant patron and the defendant bar owner for damages arising from an assault at the bar.

The plaintiff husband suffered a spiral fracture of his tibia when the intoxicated defendant patron jumped on him, and the plaintiff wife alleged she was assaulted and her breasts exposed during the altercation.

The court found the defendant patron liable for battery, as his criminal conviction for the assault was prima facie evidence and he failed to prove consent or lack of intent.

However, the court dismissed the action against the bar owner.

Although the bar over-served the patron, the court applied the test from Stewart v. Pettie and found that the patron's sudden violent outburst was not reasonably foreseeable, precluding liability in both common law negligence and under s. 39 of the Liquor Licence Act.

The plaintiff husband was awarded $50,000 in general damages and $4,600 for past income loss, while the plaintiff wife was awarded $2,000 in general damages.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but failed to appear at the arbitration hearing or communicate with her former counsel.

The arbitrator proceeded in the applicant's absence and dismissed the application for arbitration because the applicant failed to meet her onus of proving entitlement to the claimed benefits.

The insurer was awarded $875.00 in expenses due to the applicant's failure to pursue her claim and attend the hearing.

The defendant movie theatre brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prohibit the plaintiff and his litigation guardian from picketing outside the theatre and publishing allegedly defamatory statements on social media.

The underlying action involved a personal injury claim where the plaintiff allegedly suffered catastrophic injuries after choking on popcorn.

The court dismissed the motion on procedural grounds, finding it lacked jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction because the defendant had not claimed a permanent injunction in the existing or any intended proceeding.

The court also noted that the defendant's evidentiary record was insufficient to meet the substantive requirements of the RJR-MacDonald test.

The plaintiffs were injured in a motor vehicle accident in Minnesota and settled their claims there for $600,000.

They subsequently sued their Ontario insurer under the OPCF-44R Family Protection Coverage endorsement for under-insurance.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their pleadings and to determine questions of law under Rule 21 regarding whether the Minnesota defendants were underinsured and whether legal fees from the Minnesota action could be claimed as special damages.

The court held that the Minnesota defendants were underinsured with respect to one plaintiff whose settlement reached the foreign statutory limit, but not for the other plaintiff who settled below the limit.

The court further held that the legal fees incurred in the foreign action could be claimed as special damages by the eligible plaintiff.