Sachin Persaud

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an action against the Regional Municipality of Durham for failing to keep a roadway in a reasonable state of repair, following a motor vehicle accident that caused life-altering injuries to the plaintiff.

The trial judge found the road was not in a state of non-repair and did not pose an unreasonable risk to an ordinary reasonable driver, also noting the driver's excessive speed and distraction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error of law in the trial judge's analysis.

The appellate court affirmed that the trial judge correctly applied the four-part test for municipal negligence, considering the driver's conduct as one factor among others in assessing the road's condition relative to an ordinary reasonable driver, without conflating the driver's negligence with the road's state of non-repair.

The defendants Gloria Scherer and First Canada ULC brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim against them, which was opposed by The Regional Municipality of Niagara.

The motion arose from a motor vehicle accident where a vehicle carrying the plaintiff slid into the path of a school bus driven by Scherer and owned by First Canada ULC.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the bus driver's negligence or causation, ruling that the expert report relied upon by the responding party was inadmissible and, even if admissible, did not establish causation.

The court granted partial summary judgment, dismissing the claim against Scherer and First Canada ULC, finding it to be a discrete issue that could be bifurcated and resolved cost-effectively without delaying the main action or risking inconsistent findings.

This costs endorsement followed a trial where claims of negligence against a regional municipality were dismissed, along with related Family Law Act claims and a cross-claim.

The successful municipality sought partial indemnity costs.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01, including the complexity, importance, and length of the 23-day trial, as well as the conduct of counsel and the financial circumstances of the unsuccessful plaintiffs.

The court found the municipality's requested costs somewhat high and the opposing parties' proposals somewhat low.

A total partial indemnity costs award of $365,000.00 (inclusive of fees and disbursements) was made in favor of the municipality, apportioned 65% to the plaintiffs and 35% to the co-defendant, whose interests were largely aligned with the plaintiffs due to a Mary Carter agreement.

The plaintiff was catastrophically injured in a single motor vehicle collision when the vehicle, driven by the defendant driver, lost control after traversing a dip in a rural road.

The plaintiff sued the driver and the municipality, alleging the road was in a state of non-repair.

The plaintiff and the driver entered into a Mary Carter agreement and jointly pursued the municipality for liability.

The court found that the dip in the road did not constitute a state of non-repair, as it did not pose an unreasonable risk to an ordinary reasonable driver.

The court concluded the collision was caused by the driver's excessive speed and distraction from opening a beverage bottle.

The action against the municipality was dismissed.

David Turner sued the Town of Oakville under the Occupiers' Liability Act after falling off his bicycle on a recreational trail, claiming the Town acted with reckless disregard.

The parties settled damages, leaving liability as the sole issue for trial.

The Town argued no reckless disregard or causation, and alternatively, contributory negligence.

The court found that the plaintiff's choice to go around a control gate, rather than through it, and his failure to observe the trail ahead, contributed to the accident.

The court concluded that the Town's actions, including trail design, regular inspections, and maintenance, did not amount to reckless disregard for user safety, despite the absence of a specific "steep slope" sign before the incident.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs appealed an order of a Master requiring partial disclosure of a Mary Carter Agreement to a non-settling defendant in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The appellants argued the agreement was protected by settlement privilege and that disclosure would undermine settlement incentives and exceed the Master's jurisdiction.

The court reviewed Ontario jurisprudence on Mary Carter Agreements and emphasized that while settlement privilege applies, such agreements may require disclosure where they alter the adversarial landscape of the litigation.

The court held that the Master properly exercised discretion in ordering limited disclosure to ensure fairness to the non-settling defendant and to maintain the integrity of the adversarial process.

The appeal was dismissed and the order for partial disclosure upheld.

The plaintiff was injured at a park when a cormorant struck overhead hydro wires and fell on her head.

She sued the city and the hydro company for negligence.

The court ruled the plaintiff's expert evidence inadmissible as it failed the Mohan criteria.

The court held that under the Occupiers' Liability Act, the plaintiff was deemed to have willingly assumed the risks of entering the utility corridor for recreational purposes.

The court found that the hydro company did not act with reckless disregard and dismissed the action against it.