Samuel James Zucchi

The appellant appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing its application for a declaration of rights respecting an easement held by the respondent over a portion of the appellant's lands.

The appellant argued that the application judge made a palpable and overriding error regarding the extent of the easement, claiming it extended from the shoreline into the channel.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's reasoning and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

The defendant, Citadelle, brought a motion seeking an order to seal certain Master Supply Agreements (MSAs) and Individual Supply Agreements (ISAs) with Coca-Cola, arguing that these documents contained commercially sensitive and confidential information.

The plaintiff consented to the motion.

The court applied the three-part test from Sherman Estate v. Donovan, finding that court openness posed a serious risk to the important public interest of preserving confidential commercial information, that no reasonable alternative measures would prevent this risk, and that the benefits of the narrowly tailored sealing order outweighed its negative effects on the open court principle.

The motion was granted, and the identified agreements were ordered sealed.

This endorsement addresses costs following a judgment where the plaintiff was awarded damages significantly below her claim and the simplified procedure cap.

The City of Toronto sought costs based on unaccepted offers to settle.

The court denied the plaintiff any costs due to her failure to submit costs submissions and because her award was less than 50% of the simplified procedure cap, making it unreasonable to continue under ordinary procedure.

The City's offers to settle, which included a requirement for a future-negotiated standard release, were found not to trigger Rule 49.10 costs consequences, consistent with *D’Anscenzo v. Nichols*.

However, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 49.13, considering the plaintiff's unrealistic claims, litigation delays, and failure to accept reasonable offers.

The City was awarded $35,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, Ruth Kidane, brought an action for damages following a slip and fall on a sidewalk.

Liability was admitted by the City of Toronto, leaving causation and damages as the sole issues at trial.

The plaintiff sought over $1.2 million in damages, attributing various chronic health issues and an inability to start a daycare business to the fall.

The court applied a robust and pragmatic approach to causation, finding that the fall caused a minor head injury/concussion, multiple soft tissue injuries, and low mood, which resolved within one year.

The court rejected the plaintiff's claims for other injuries and long-term effects, attributing them to pre-existing conditions.

The court awarded $45,000 for general damages, $4,000 for loss of income (limited to 2014), and $161.05 for out-of-pocket expenses, totaling $49,161.05.

The plaintiff commenced an action against her husband's children and the lawyers who acted for him in prior divorce proceedings, alleging conspiracy, abuse of process, and other torts.

The defendants moved to strike or dismiss the claims under Rule 21.

The court dismissed the claims against the adverse lawyers, finding no duty of care was owed to the plaintiff.

The court also dismissed the tort claims for abuse of process, conspiracy, and intentional interference with economic relations as an abuse of process by relitigation, as they sought to undermine the final settlement reached in the divorce proceedings.

The defamation and intentional infliction of mental suffering claims were struck with leave to amend.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking answers to undertakings, questions taken under advisement, and questions refused during the examination for discovery of the defendant's representative.

The action concerned an accident where the plaintiff's vehicle allegedly dropped into a hole in the road.

The court applied the relevance test under Rule 31.06 and proportionality principles under Rule 29.2.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Master ruled on each contested question, ordering some to be answered (e.g., reason for representative selection, statutory duty to maintain streets, specific practice manuals, cause of hole) and refusing others (e.g., overly broad requests for manuals, questions about training or budgets not pleaded).

Some undertakings were confirmed as answered, and others were ordered to be completed by consent.