Rovena Hajderi

The plaintiff, an actor, sued the defendant production company for personal injuries sustained while filming a commercial.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by a Release and Waiver the plaintiff signed to receive Accident on Set benefits.

The court found the waiver was clear, not unconscionable, and voluntarily signed by the plaintiff after she was given time to review it and ask questions.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to adjourn the scheduled trial of their action concerning well water contamination on their purchased property.

The adjournment was sought to allow the plaintiffs to complete a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment.

The defendant municipality opposed the motion, arguing that the plaintiffs were precluded from taking further steps under Rule 48.04 as the action had been set down for trial.

The court granted leave under Rule 48.04, finding it was in the interests of justice, and granted the adjournment to ensure the action could be determined on its merits with the best available evidence.

The appellant's solicitors, Stieber Berlach LLP, moved for an order removing them as solicitors of record for the appellant, Jeremy Williams, citing an irreparable breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship due to the client's lack of communication, failure to follow instructions, and non-compliance with the retainer agreement.

The appellant opposed the motion but failed to file responding materials.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that the relationship had broken down and that the appellant would not be materially prejudiced, despite the upcoming appeal hearing.

The court emphasized that the client's desire for the solicitor to continue is not determinative if the circumstances justify withdrawal.

During a civil jury trial for a slip and fall claim, the plaintiff moved to discharge the jury following the defendants' closing address.

The plaintiff argued that defence counsel's closing submissions contained numerous transgressions, including misstating evidence, expressing personal opinions, referring to unproven hearsay, and breaching the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The trial judge agreed, finding that the cumulative effect of the improper statements and trial conduct created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice that could not be cured by correcting instructions.

The motion was granted, the jury was discharged, and the trial was concluded by judge alone.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for damages after slipping and falling on a clear, greasy cleaning substance outside an elevator on the defendants' premises.

The court found the defendants 100% liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act, as their cleaner had improperly sprayed the substance onto the elevator doors, causing it to pool on the shiny granite floor without warning signs.

The court rejected arguments of contributory negligence.

The plaintiff suffered a mild traumatic brain injury (concussion) and chronic soft tissue injuries, leading to chronic migraines and neck pain that significantly impacted her career trajectory in the financial sector.

The court awarded $115,000 in general damages, $173,400 for past income loss, $501,500 for future loss of earning capacity (after a 15% contingency deduction), $10,000 for special damages, and $15,000 for past loss of housekeeping capacity.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither party uploaded costs outlines as directed, the court ordered no costs on the motion for leave to appeal, leaving the costs of the motion below to be decided by the motion judge.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment by the defendant owner regarding vicarious liability, the plaintiffs obtained a Sanderson order directing the unsuccessful defendant insurer to pay the owner's costs.

The owner sought partial indemnity costs of $47,712.83.

The court reduced the costs awarded due to the owner's failure to disclose a material witness statement prior to mediation and for advancing an unmeritorious abuse of process argument.

Costs were fixed at $16,687.29 payable by the insurer to the owner.

The defendant vehicle owner brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action and the co-defendant insurer's cross-claim against her, arguing she did not consent to the co-defendant driver possessing her vehicle at the time of the motor vehicle accident.

The co-defendant insurer opposed the motion, arguing implied consent.

The court first ruled that partial summary judgment was appropriate and ordered the production of the driver's statement to the owner's insurer, finding it was not protected by litigation privilege.

On the merits, the court found that the owner had explicitly forbidden the driver from using her car and that he took it without her knowledge or consent.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the owner, dismissing the claims against her.

The third party, Huronia Landscaping, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the third party claim against it by the defendant, Aerarium Development Corporation Limited, in a personal injury action.

The plaintiff's claim stemmed from a slip and fall on stairs.

The central issues were the precise date of the accident relative to the date of repairs performed by Huronia, and the quality of those repairs.

The court found that regardless of whether the accident occurred before the repairs (September 19, 2013) or after (September 27, 2013), Huronia could not be held liable.

If before, the repairs had not yet taken place.

If after, the evidence clearly demonstrated that the repairs were properly made and the stairs were in good condition post-repair.

The court also addressed the defendant's argument that a jury notice precluded summary judgment, affirming that it does not.

The motion for summary judgment was allowed, and the third party claim against Huronia was dismissed.

The defendant sought costs of $29,522.82 following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

The defendant argued for substantial indemnity costs from the date of an offer to settle.

The court found that the plaintiff's motion was not unreasonable, as it had an arguable case and the motion served to narrow the issues and shorten future discoveries.

Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to order costs in the cause, fixing the amount at $22,500 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce an indemnity under a commercial property insurance policy following a fire loss.

The parties disputed the amount payable for cleanup costs, with the plaintiff relying on its contractor's invoice and the defendant insurer relying on a lower estimate from its preferred contractor.

The court found significant confusion and miscommunication between the parties regarding which contractor was to provide the control estimate and whether the plaintiff breached the policy by denying access to the insurer's agent.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed as there were genuine issues requiring a trial that could not be resolved on the documentary record.

Following a successful summary judgment motion against the defendant property manager for professional negligence and breach of contract, the plaintiff condominium corporation sought costs.

The plaintiff claimed full indemnity costs based on an indemnity provision in the condominium management agreement.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to full indemnity of its reasonable costs due to the contractual provision.

Finding the claimed amount of $57,816 excessive despite the defendant's stiff resistance, the court fixed costs at $42,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment against its former property manager for breach of contract and indemnification.

The property manager had issued an inaccurate and incomplete status certificate to a purchaser, failing to disclose an ongoing expropriation and a planned roof replacement project.

As a result, the condominium corporation incurred $97,182.68 in legal costs defending an application brought by the purchaser.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the property manager breached the management agreement and was liable under the indemnity clause for the costs incurred by the condominium corporation.

A condominium unit owner brought an application challenging the termination of her parking space lease, the registration of two condominium liens, and administrative fines imposed by the condominium corporation.

The court found that the condominium corporation improperly terminated the parking lease before the expiry of the notice period and wrongfully registered liens that included amounts not properly lienable under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court further held that bylaw provisions allowing the board to impose arbitrary administrative fees were ultra vires and that the board’s refusal to engage in required mediation and arbitration, along with its conduct toward the owner, constituted oppressive conduct.

However, the applicant failed to prove that most of her alleged damages were causally connected to the misconduct.

The court ordered repayment of amounts paid under the invalid liens and awarded nominal damages for oppression.

Following an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment in an employment-related constructive dismissal action, the court addressed costs.

The plaintiff, a self‑represented security guard, acknowledged responsibility for costs but submitted he could only pay approximately $2,000.

The defendants sought $4,361.40 in partial indemnity costs.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable in the circumstances, the court held that the amount claimed was within the legitimate expectations of the parties and reasonable for the motion.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay $4,000 in costs jointly to the defendants.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiffs brought a motion to exclude surveillance evidence obtained by the defendant.

The defendant had disclosed a surveillance video from October 2012 well in advance of trial but failed to disclose additional surveillance from 2013 and 2014 until shortly before trial, contrary to an undertaking given at discovery.

The court held that although the defendant breached its disclosure obligations, the October 2012 surveillance could still be admitted as substantive evidence and for impeachment because it had been disclosed long before trial and both parties’ experts had reviewed it.

The later surveillance footage could not be relied upon by the defendant but remained available for the plaintiffs’ use.

Any potential prejudice could be addressed through supplemental expert reports or an adjournment.