Scott Robert Hawryliw

The appellants (Donkers parties) appealed the damages and costs awards made in a counterclaim by the respondents (Priest parties).

The original litigation stemmed from the Donkers parties' seizure of assets from the Priest parties' waste removal business without notice, leading to the Priest parties' business failure.

The trial judge had quantified damages for the Priest parties' counterclaim for breach of contract.

The Donkers parties argued the trial judge erred by not reducing the award for an excavator lease and by not applying consistent asset valuations.

They also raised new arguments regarding mitigation and expert fees.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in any of the appellants' submissions, dismissing the appeal and awarding costs to the respondents.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their negligence action on summary judgment motions brought by the respondents.

The plaintiff was assaulted after exiting a chartered bus at a plaza in Barrie, sustaining a serious head injury.

The respondents operated a bar with a transportation and security system designed to prevent violence.

The motions judge found the case suitable for summary judgment and held that the respondents met the applicable standard of care.

The Court of Appeal found that the motions judge failed to properly articulate and apply the standard of care, effectively treating the plaintiff's contributory negligence as a bar to the claim.

The court held that the respondents owed a duty not to place the plaintiff in a position where foreseeable injury could occur, and that a trial was necessary to properly assess the standard of care and causation.

The defendants First Student Canada, David Ribble, 1853780 Ontario Inc. o/a Kee to Bala, and Ryan Zaroski sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for damages arising from an assault on Ryan Turcotte.

The assault occurred in a parking lot after Turcotte disembarked from a chartered bus service provided by the defendants.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence under the Occupiers’ Liability Act, Liquor Licence Act, and general negligence.

The court found no evidence that the defendants failed in their duty of care regarding premises safety, bus security, or intoxication monitoring.

The court also rejected allegations that the defendants should have diverted the bus, prevented Turcotte or the assailants from leaving, or provided more explicit warnings, concluding that Turcotte was aware of the potential danger.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against the moving defendants.