3 total
Summary judgment was granted dismissing a trip and fall claim because the defendants complied with elevator maintenance standards.
The plaintiffs brought an action for damages following a trip and fall incident involving an elevator mislevelling at a condominium.
The defendants, including the condominium corporation, property manager, elevator maintenance company (thyssenkrupp), and security company, each brought motions for summary judgment, arguing there were no genuine issues for trial.
The court examined the defendants' compliance with their duties under the Occupiers Liability Act, relevant regulations, and maintenance contracts, particularly concerning elevator safety and maintenance.
The court found that the defendants had reasonable systems in place, complied with the CSA B44 Code and other legislation, and that the plaintiffs failed to establish a causal link between any alleged negligence and the injuries.
All summary judgment motions were granted, dismissing the plaintiffs' action.
Court orders multiple defence medical examinations but denies diabetes specialist assessment.
In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the moving defendants sought an order compelling the plaintiff to attend four independent medical examinations, including assessments by an occupational therapist, psychiatrist, neuropsychologist, and diabetes specialist.
The court considered the principles governing additional medical examinations under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 33.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing trial fairness and the defendants’ entitlement to respond to expert evidence served by the plaintiff.
The court held that psychiatric, neuropsychological, and occupational therapy assessments were justified to allow the defendants to fairly respond to the plaintiff’s psychological injury and future care cost claims.
However, the request for an examination by a diabetes specialist was denied due to insufficient evidence establishing the need for an in‑person assessment.
Conditions were imposed regarding scheduling, transportation, and accommodations to reduce the burden on the plaintiff.
Costs of resolved disclosure motion reserved to trial judge as underlying misrepresentation allegations require trial.
The defendants brought a motion for a further affidavit of documents and disclosure from a non-party insurer regarding an accident benefits settlement.
After the substantive issues were resolved, both parties sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.
The defendants alleged the plaintiffs misrepresented the settlement to deprive them of collateral benefit deductions.
The court declined to award costs to either party, finding that the alleged misrepresentation was pleaded in the amended statement of defence and should be determined by the trial judge.
The costs of the motion were reserved to the trial judge.
