Sergio Grillone

The plaintiff sought an order staying a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) application and a declaration that the defendants were estopped from bringing it.

The defendants had pleaded that the action was statute-barred under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, and had initiated a WSIAT Right to Sue Application.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants had attorned to the Superior Court's jurisdiction by consenting to a pre-trial conference date.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the WSIAT has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the right to sue issue and that the defendants had not waived their right to proceed with the WSIAT hearing.

The defendants, Dr. Hans Dietrich Strauss and The Credit Valley Hospital, brought motions for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case concerning the death of Paul Delicata.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence in the care of the deceased.

The court found the plaintiffs' expert evidence inadmissible due to procedural non-compliance (not attached to an expert's affidavit, non-compliance with Rule 53.03 requirements).

Even if admissible, the expert reports were deficient and contradicted by hospital records.

The court accepted the defendants' expert evidence, concluding there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the standard of care or causation.

The motions for summary judgment were granted, and the action was dismissed against both defendants.

The defendant insurance company brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for long term disability benefits.

The insurer denied the claim based on a pre-existing condition exclusion, arguing the plaintiff only became eligible for coverage after a three-month waiting period following his transition to full-time employment.

The plaintiff argued he was not subject to the waiting period.

The court found the policy clearly defined an employee as permanent and full-time, and the plaintiff's own discovery evidence confirmed he understood his eligibility date.

The court granted summary judgment for the defendant and dismissed the action.

Following dismissal of a summary judgment motion, the court determined costs as between the moving defendants and other defendants in related actions.

The court held that parties against whom specific relief was sought were entitled to costs even though they filed no responding materials, did not cross-examine, and made no oral submissions, because it was reasonable for them to review the materials and attend to protect their clients' interests.

Applying general costs principles under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1), the court awarded partial indemnity costs in reduced amounts.

Costs were fixed at $4,000 all-inclusive for two responding defendants jointly and $2,000 all-inclusive for another responding defendant.

The Appellant appealed an Arbitrator's preliminary decision finding that he was not involved in a motor vehicle accident as defined by the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Arbitrator had concluded, based on witness testimony and credibility assessments, that the Appellant was not in the parked van when it was struck by another vehicle.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate held that the Arbitrator's findings were reasonably inferred from the evidence and did not constitute an error of law.

The appeal was dismissed and the Arbitrator's decision confirmed.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury claim arising from a zip-line accident, relying on a participant agreement containing a waiver of liability.

The plaintiff argued the waiver was invalid or unenforceable because she did not understand she was signing a release, the waiver language was ambiguous, and the circumstances of signing were misleading.

The court held that the evidentiary record was incomplete regarding the conditions under which the agreement was presented and signed, including potential misrepresentations and the plaintiff’s understanding of the document.

Given the document’s structure, typographical errors, and disputed circumstances, the court concluded that credibility findings and a full evidentiary record were required.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate and the enforceability of the waiver must be determined at trial.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision to use expanded fact-finding powers under Rules 20.04(2.1) and (2.2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to grant summary judgment and avoid a trial.

They also challenged the partial indemnity costs award of $24,294.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion and no basis to interfere with the costs award.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, arguing the claim was barred by s. 267.6 of the Insurance Act because the plaintiff’s automobile insurance was retroactively voided by the insurer after the accident.

The court considered whether the plaintiff was contravening s. 2(1) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act at the time of the accident.

The evidence showed the vehicle was insured on the date of the collision and the insurer confirmed coverage shortly afterward before later voiding the policy retroactively.

The court held that the statutory bar applies only where the vehicle was uninsured at the time of the incident.

A retroactive voiding of insurance after the accident did not establish that the vehicle was uninsured at the relevant time.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages arising from a workplace accident where the plaintiff truck driver suffered a severe leg fracture while using an electrical pallet jack at the defendant's premises.

The action proceeded as an undefended trial against the defendant Grocery Dayton, who failed to file a Statement of Defence.

Liability was deemed admitted under Rule 25.07(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court assessed damages based on the plaintiff's evidence and filed reports, awarding $125,000 in general damages, $799,100 for future economic loss, $26,100 for future care costs, and $30,000 for the spouse's Family Law Act claim, totaling $980,200.

The plaintiff sought damages arising from a motor vehicle collision in which liability was admitted.

A jury assessed general damages at $35,000 but awarded nothing for competitive disadvantage or handyman services.

The trial judge was required to determine whether the claim met the statutory threshold under s.267.5 of the Insurance Act for recovery of non‑pecuniary damages.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that his ongoing symptoms were caused by the collision, given significant prior back injuries and more persuasive defence expert evidence.

In any event, the alleged impairments did not amount to a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function.

The action was dismissed for failure to meet the statutory threshold.

Following the release of the main appeal decision, the parties reached an agreement regarding the costs of the motion before the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal ordered the respondents to pay the appellant's costs of the motion, fixed at $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, in accordance with the parties' agreement.

The appellants, custom kitchen distributors, sued the respondent manufacturer for breach of contract after the respondent closed its business in 2008.

The respondent successfully moved to dismiss the action under Rule 21.01(1)(a) on the basis that the two-year limitation period had expired before the claim was issued in July 2011.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the pleadings and particulars established the cause of action arose no later than the end of 2008 and discoverability was not an issue.

The respondent was assaulted by two unknown men in a parking lot, forced into his vehicle, and assaulted further before being abandoned.

As the assailants drove away, they ran over his foot.

The respondent claimed statutory accident benefits and indemnity coverage from his automobile insurer.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the injuries were caused by the assaults, not the use or operation of the vehicle.

The motion judge dismissed the insurer's motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the assaults were intervening acts independent of the vehicle's use, breaking the chain of causation.

Summary judgment was granted to the insurer for all claims except those relating to the foot injury, which required a trial.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's finding that the essential character of his dispute with the respondent union concerned the duties of fair representation and fair referral under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The appellant sought to separate the issue of his termination to pursue it in the courts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the termination was part of the ongoing dispute regarding fair representation, and noting that unnecessary bifurcation of proceedings from the same factual matrix should be avoided.

The court addressed deficiencies in materials previously submitted regarding claims involving minors represented by a litigation guardian.

The court had earlier directed counsel to provide additional medical, psychological, and factual details to demonstrate that the infant claims did not exceed $15,000, or alternatively to pay funds into court.

Counsel failed to respond to the court’s direction before the minors reached the age of majority.

The court ordered the solicitor to deliver a written report explaining the failure to comply with the court’s direction and outlining the ultimate result of the action.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that she was totally disabled and entitled to long term disability benefits under a group insurance policy.

The insurer argued that a prior settlement and release barred the claim and that there were unresolved factual issues concerning whether the plaintiff’s current condition was the same condition previously released.

The court held that determining whether the current condition fell within the scope of the prior release required medical expert evidence and credibility assessments not suitable for determination on a written record.

Additional issues remained regarding the plaintiff’s eligibility under the policy and whether she could perform other occupations after the initial disability period.

The court concluded that the evidentiary record did not allow a full appreciation of the issues on a summary judgment motion.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for a catastrophic impairment rebuttal report.

Following an appeal decision that rescinded the hearing arbitrator's decision and remitted the issue to a new hearing, both parties sought their legal expenses for the appeal.

The Director's Delegate found that both parties had agreed to the arbitrator's incorrect legal foundation at the initial hearing.

Consequently, the Delegate ordered that each party bear its own legal expenses for the appeal.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied payment for a catastrophic impairment rebuttal report, arguing it was submitted beyond the 80-business-day time limit under paragraph 42.1(3)3 of the Schedule.

The Arbitrator dismissed the appellant's claim.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate found the Arbitrator erred in law by misapprehending the trigger date for the 80-day time limit, as the insurer had not provided clear notice of its determination.

The Arbitrator's order was rescinded and the issue remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed an order regarding her compliance with an agreement of purchase and sale.

She argued that providing a cheque for the deposit on September 16, 2006, established complete compliance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the cheque was negotiable when provided, and upholding the summary trial judge's conclusion.

The applicant sought payment of $20,242.82 for a catastrophic impairment rebuttal report following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied payment on the basis that the report was not provided within the 80 business day time limit set out in section 42.1(3) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to prove the report was provided to the insurer within the required timeframe and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay under section 31.

The application for arbitration was dismissed.