Robert Harold Barrett

The moving parties, two commercial establishments, sought leave to appeal the dismissal of their motions for summary judgment.

The plaintiff had sustained a severe traumatic brain injury after falling down stairs at a rented chalet following a night of drinking at the moving parties' establishments.

The moving parties argued their duty of care ended when the plaintiff reached the chalet.

The court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that foreseeability of risk and the sobriety of the plaintiff's companions were issues requiring a trial.

The defendants Tholos Restaurant Inc. and Kaytoo Restaurant and Bar Limited brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a negligence action brought by the plaintiff, Matthew Linton, who suffered a severe brain injury after falling down steps at a chalet following a bachelor party.

The plaintiff alleged commercial host liability, arguing the defendants overserved him alcohol, leading to his intoxication.

The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the amount of alcohol consumed, when and where it was consumed, and whether the commercial hosts knew or ought to have known of the plaintiff's intoxication.

The court emphasized the conflict between expert toxicologist evidence (suggesting obvious intoxication) and lay witness statements (denying visible impairment), and the risk of inconsistent findings if the motion were granted while the action against other defendants proceeded to trial.

The applicant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement to resolve the arbitration proceeding.

Subsequently, the applicant attempted to reopen discussions regarding a special award, arguing it was not explicitly included in the settlement.

The insurer maintained that the Minutes resolved the entire arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the Minutes were clear and unambiguous, and that the parties intended to settle all issues pending in the arbitration proceeding, including the claim for a special award.

The arbitrator ordered that all issues in the arbitration proceeding had been settled.

The applicant was injured in motor vehicle accidents in 1994 and 1996.

Following a failed mediation and a purported settlement, the parties disputed which statutory accident benefit claims could proceed to arbitration.

The arbitrator held that a pragmatic and flexible approach should be applied to the mediation requirement.

The applicant was permitted to proceed to arbitration on the quantum of income replacement benefits and supplementary medical/rehabilitation benefits, as they flowed consequentially from the mediated issues or were captured by the broad descriptions in the mediation applications.

However, claims for attendant care and housekeeping were barred from arbitration because they were not expressly mediated, did not flow from mediated issues, and would cause prejudice to the insurer.

The applicant was injured in motor vehicle accidents in 1994 and 1996 and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated weekly income replacement benefits.

On the eve of an arbitration hearing, a preliminary issue was raised regarding which statutory accident benefit claims were captured in the applications for mediation and could proceed to arbitration.

The arbitrator determined that the applicant could proceed to arbitration on nine specific issues, including income replacement benefits, loss of earning capacity benefits, supplementary medical expenses, rehabilitation benefits, special awards, and expenses.