Shawn J. O’Connor

Nisco National Leasing, a division of HVL Ltd. ("Nisco"), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims against it by Mark Pittuck and other plaintiffs.

Pittuck was injured while operating a leased tow truck, alleging Nisco's negligence for failing to remove a dangerous "side puller" or provide maintenance instructions.

The court found that the commercial lease agreement explicitly placed responsibility for inspection, acceptance, and maintenance of the tow truck solely on Pittuck, and Nisco was not a dealer or manufacturer.

The court determined that the Sale of Goods Act did not apply to the commercial lease, and the contractual terms limited Nisco's duty of care, taking precedence over any potential tort claim.

Nisco's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the claims.

Following a successful summary judgment motion on liability, the plaintiff sought costs for both the motion and the liability portion of the action.

The defendant opposed, arguing costs should be proportionate to future damages and seeking a credit for costs received from a third-party settlement.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, finding no reason to defer costs and that the third-party settlement was irrelevant to the costs between the main parties.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis for the action's liability portion and a substantial indemnity basis for the motion, totaling $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff, Margaret Ozimkowski, moved for partial summary judgment on liability against the defendant, Luc Raymond, following a rear-end motor vehicle collision on an icy road.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff's actions and the icy road conditions created a genuine issue for trial, and that granting partial summary judgment would risk inconsistent findings with his third-party claim against the County of Lanark.

The court found that the defendant failed to disprove his negligence, as the plaintiff's stop was reasonable given the conditions and visible emergency lights.

The court also determined that there was no risk of inconsistent findings with the third-party claim, as the issues were distinct.

Partial summary judgment on liability was granted to the plaintiff, with damages to be assessed at trial.

The plaintiff, a former nursing student, sued the defendants (individual employees and two educational institutions) for various torts after being wrongfully accused of academic fraud.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the amended statement of claim.

The court struck the claims for personal liability against individual defendants, breach of fiduciary duty, and defamation, but granted leave to the plaintiff to amend the claim within 45 days.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient particulars for personal liability of employees, failed to establish the elements for a fiduciary duty, and did not plead that the defamatory words were spoken or written by the university defendants.

Costs were agreed upon by the parties.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of proceedings before the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) and professional colleges.

The applicant provided evidence that the FSCO application was withdrawn following a settlement with the respondent insurer, and the college proceedings were completed.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and directed that a preliminary/summary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The plaintiff, a former nursing student, sued the defendants for damages after they falsely accused her of academic fraud.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the statement of claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, related to an academic matter, and was an abuse of process.

The court found that while the university has broad discretion in academic matters, this does not extend to the negligent performance of an internal investigation or intentional torts.

The court struck the claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, defamation, bad faith, and breach of privacy due to pleading deficiencies, but granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the delivery of a service based on disability, family status, and marital status.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of concurrent proceedings before the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) and professional colleges.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the facts and issues in the application and the FSCO arbitration, raising a real risk of inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the FSCO proceeding.

On a motion to amend a statement of defence and crossclaim in a nuisance and negligence action arising from alleged structural damage caused by construction dewatering and a neighbouring tree, the moving defendant sought to delete pleaded facts and add a limitations defence.

The court held that the impugned paragraphs contained material admissions helpful to the plaintiff on a central causation issue, and their deletion would cause prejudice not compensable by costs or adjournment.

However, the court permitted narrower amendments correcting an obvious error in the property reference while preserving the admissions about dewatering impacts in the vicinity.

The limitations pleading was also allowed, and no costs were awarded because success was divided.

The applicant filed a request to withdraw her human rights application.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed to prevent future refiling.

The Tribunal granted the applicant permission to withdraw the application without conditions, noting that if the applicant attempts to refile, the respondent may raise its objections at that time.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to consolidate two related actions, add a new plaintiff, and amend its pleadings to include claims for defamation and breach of a duty of good faith.

The court held that the two actions should not be formally consolidated but ordered that they be listed for trial consecutively.

The proposed defamation claim and addition of a new plaintiff were refused because the pleadings lacked the particularity required for defamation and would not survive a motion to strike.

The proposed claim for breach of a duty of good faith was also rejected because such a duty cannot stand as an independent cause of action separate from breach of contract.

Certain amendments pleading material facts were allowed, while others were dismissed for improperly pleading evidence rather than material facts.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, age, and receipt of public assistance.

He subsequently requested to add his spouse as a co-applicant.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal treated the request as a new application filed on the spouse's behalf and consolidated the two applications.

The Tribunal dismissed several allegations, including those related to subsidy information, an ODSP drug card, and certain repair issues, on the bases of delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The remaining allegations concerning the timing of a move to a new unit and specific disability-related repair issues were permitted to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability and reprisal.

In advance of the hearing, the parties disputed the production of certain documents.

The applicant objected to the respondents' late production of surveillance footage and investigator reports, which the Tribunal deferred to the hearing.

The respondents requested production of the applicant's financial records, vehicle documents, and medical records.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce these documents, finding them arguably relevant to the issues of economic loss, mitigation, and the extent of the applicant's disability.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code and later requested to withdraw it after the respondent had filed a response.

The respondent objected, requesting that the application be dismissed to ensure finality.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to withdraw the application without terms, noting that if a new application based on the same subject matter is filed in the future, the respondent may object at that time.

A third party brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a third party claim for contribution and indemnity on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The moving party argued that there was no contractual relationship with the defendant in the main action and therefore no basis for liability, and further that the damages claimed were not the same.

The court applied the generous “plain and obvious” test governing motions to strike and reviewed the scope of third party claims under Rule 29.01.

It held that it was arguable the parties owed each other a duty of care in negligence arising from their roles in the same construction project and that the claim could also constitute an independent claim arising from the same transaction.

Because it was not plain and obvious that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, the motion to dismiss the third party claim was refused.

The applicant was struck by a car and claimed statutory accident benefits.

At the hearing, the insurer conceded the applicant suffered a catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder.

The parties disputed the quantum of attendant care benefits.

The applicant sought the maximum $6,000 per month based on an occupational therapy assessment recommending 24-hour care, while the insurer argued for approximately $2,000 per month based on surveillance footage showing greater independence.

The arbitrator awarded $2,987.47 per month, preferring the insurer's second expert regarding supervisory care but rejecting her reductions for personal hygiene.

The arbitrator also ordered a $6,000 special award against the insurer for unreasonably withholding the differential attendant care benefits for 15 months without seeking a professional review of its own expert's maximum-care recommendation.

The parties were involved in a long-standing dealership agreement that deteriorated over time.

The plaintiff originally obtained a consent interlocutory injunction preventing the defendant from terminating the agreement, which remained in place for nearly ten years without the matter proceeding to trial.

The defendant successfully moved to dissolve the injunction due to inordinate delay, but the plaintiff subsequently obtained a fresh interim injunction from a different judge after receiving a new termination notice.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the dissolution of the original injunction, finding no reversible error.

However, the court allowed the defendant's appeal and set aside the fresh injunction, concluding that the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors and that the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured continuing the hostile business relationship.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought attendant care benefits from the insurer.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue, arguing that the applicant was precluded from proceeding to arbitration because the specific time period for the attendant care benefits claimed had not been the subject of a failed mediation.

The arbitrator found that the issue of attendant care benefits had indeed been mediated and failed, as evidenced by the mediator's report.

The arbitrator held that section 281(2) of the Insurance Act does not require a detailed analysis of every element of an issue raised in mediation.

The applicant was permitted to proceed to arbitration, and the arbitrator awarded expenses to the applicant, finding the insurer's position to be unnecessary and vexatious.

The member, a retired teacher, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct and unethical conduct arising from inappropriate correspondence with a former student.

Over a one-year period, the member sent letters to the former student expressing romantic and sexual interest, thereby failing to uphold the honour, dignity, and ethical standards of the teaching profession.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering the immediate revocation of the member's certificate of qualification and registration, and directing publication of the findings in summary form without identifying names.

The insurer appealed an arbitration decision awarding the self-employed insured weekly income benefits above the minimum amount.

The insured cross-appealed the quantum, the duration of benefits, and the denial of arbitration expenses.

The Director's Delegate allowed the insurer's appeal, finding that the insured's inadequate and falsified business records provided no reliable basis for calculating his pre-accident income above the minimum.

The insured's cross-appeal was dismissed, upholding the arbitrator's findings on post-156 week entitlement and the denial of expenses due to the insured's fraudulent conduct.

The applicant, a self-employed contractor, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing statutory accident benefits.

The insurer disputed the calculation of his pre-accident income and his entitlement to benefits beyond the 156-week mark.

The arbitrator found the applicant's business records unreliable due to fraudulent alterations, calculating his income based on a 52-week average rather than a 4-week period.

On the issue of disability, the arbitrator determined that the applicant remained disabled from his pre-accident employment and required a work hardening program before transitioning to suitable alternative employment in construction retail.

The applicant was awarded ongoing benefits and partial expenses, with deductions for post-accident earnings.