Ryan Steiner

The plaintiffs were injured in a motorcycle accident while travelling through a road construction zone.

A flagger employed by the defendant paving contractor directed the plaintiff to cross an elevated lip of freshly laid asphalt.

The asphalt was unstable and had not sufficiently cooled, causing the motorcycle's rear tire to lose traction and the plaintiff to be thrown from the vehicle.

The court found the County liable under the Municipal Act, 2001 for failing to keep the road in a reasonable state of repair, and the contractor liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act for failing to ensure the premises were reasonably safe.

No contributory negligence was found against the plaintiff.

The defendants were held jointly and severally liable for the agreed damages of $325,000.

The defendant, Gail MacDonald (Trustee of John's Estate), brought a motion for a determination of a question of law under Rule 21.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, Giovanni Zambri, claimed negligence and liability under the Occupiers' Liability Act following an explosion at a house.

The core issue was whether John's Estate owed a duty of care or was an occupier, given that a prior decision (Spies J.'s Decision) retroactively established Paul Zigomanis (John's son) as the legal and beneficial owner of the house at the time of the explosion.

The court found that John's Estate, not being the owner or trustee at the time of the explosion, did not owe a duty of care, nor was it an occupier under the Act.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim against John's Estate was dismissed.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their statement of claim to significantly increase claims for future care, housekeeping, and income loss.

The defendant did not oppose the amendment but sought orders compelling a further examination for discovery and requiring the plaintiff to attend a defence in-home occupational therapy assessment.

The court held the defendant had not met the requirements under Rule 31.09 to justify a further discovery because there was no evidence the plaintiff’s prior answers were incomplete or incorrect.

However, the court exercised its discretion to order a non‑medical occupational therapy assessment, finding that the plaintiff had placed functional limitations and significant future care costs in issue and fairness required the defendant be able to obtain comparable evidence.

The motion for further discovery was denied, but the defence occupational therapy assessment was ordered and costs were awarded partially to the defendant.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their statement of claim to significantly increase claims for future care, housekeeping, and income loss.

The defendant did not oppose the amendment but sought orders compelling a further examination for discovery and requiring the plaintiff to attend a defence in-home occupational therapy assessment.

The court held the defendant had not met the requirements under Rule 31.09 to justify a further discovery because there was no evidence the plaintiff’s prior answers were incomplete or incorrect.

However, the court exercised its discretion to order a non‑medical occupational therapy assessment, finding that the plaintiff had placed functional limitations and significant future care costs in issue and fairness required the defendant be able to obtain comparable evidence.

The motion for further discovery was denied, but the defence occupational therapy assessment was ordered and costs were awarded partially to the defendant.