Stephen Edgar Sloan

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant established a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment for the pre-104 week period, the respondent was not liable to pay the IRBs because the applicant failed to provide reasonably required financial documentation to calculate the quantum.

The applicant's claim for post-104 week IRBs was barred due to her failure to attend a reasonably necessary vocational assessment without a reasonable explanation.

Claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and a treatment plan for psychological and neuropsychological assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's limitations were due to pre-existing conditions, including multiple sclerosis, and that he did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of his pre-accident activities or objective medical evidence to refute the respondent's insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant was not entitled to the non-earner benefits, the treatment plan, interest, or an award for unreasonable delay.

Following a trial where the plaintiff's negligence action was dismissed on causation, the successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $60,000.

The court considered the plaintiff's success on the issues of duty of care, breach, and foreseeability, which consumed significant trial time.

The court also factored in the economic disparity between the personal plaintiff and the insurer-backed defendants, who refused to mediate or make a Rule 49 offer.

After deducting the plaintiff's costs thrown away from two trial adjournments and the costs of an expert witness whose testimony would have been unnecessary had the defendants complied with statutory requirements, the court reduced the remaining costs by 50% to reflect the plaintiff's partial success on the issues.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay costs of $13,743.92.

The plaintiff was assaulted by two unknown individuals in the stairwell of a municipal parking garage.

He sued the city and its contracted security company for negligence and breach of the Occupiers' Liability Act, alleging inadequate security measures.

The court found that both defendants owed a duty of care and breached it by failing to conduct threat/risk assessments, install video cameras in stairwells, or implement adequate security patrols.

However, the action was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove causation; the assault lasted only 30 seconds, meaning it could not have been prevented even if proper security measures had been in place.

In the first phase of a bifurcated trial, the court addressed whether a 16-year-old G1 driver, Nihad Ismail, had his father Sherif's express or implied consent to operate his vehicle, and whether Sherif Ismail negligently entrusted the vehicle to Nihad.

Nihad was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving his father's car without permission.

The court found no evidence of express or implied consent, noting Nihad's subjective belief that he lacked permission and the absence of prior unauthorized use known to the father.

The court also dismissed the claim of negligent entrustment, finding that the element of "entrustment" was not established as there was no direct giving of the chattel from owner to operator.

Consequently, Sherif Ismail was not held vicariously liable under the Highway Traffic Act.

The plaintiffs moved to amend their statement of claim following a motor vehicle accident to add a municipality as a defendant and to properly name the existing defendant as a person under disability represented by a litigation guardian.

The municipality opposed the amendment on the basis that the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 had expired.

The plaintiffs relied on the discoverability principle, arguing that they did not learn the material facts supporting a claim against the municipality until they obtained police officers’ notes describing hazardous icy road conditions.

The court held that the limitation period began when the plaintiffs ought to have obtained the notes through the exercise of reasonable diligence.

Because the plaintiffs failed to follow up on a request for the notes for several years, the discoverability principle did not extend the limitation period.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Master Dash on the issue of costs only.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred in exercising his discretion with respect to costs against the plaintiffs.

The court noted that a relevant precedent with virtually identical facts had not been brought to the Master's attention.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The appellants were injured when a youth, who had left a residential treatment home operated by the respondent without permission, crashed a stolen car into their house.

Over three years later, the appellants moved to add the respondent as a defendant, alleging negligent supervision.

The motions judge dismissed the motion, finding the respondent was protected by the six-month limitation period under the Public Authorities Protection Act and refusing to exercise discretion to add the party due to presumed prejudice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming the respondent was acting as a public authority fulfilling a public duty, and the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice caused by the delay.

The appellant appealed a judgment of Justice Juriansz.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower court's conclusion and reasons.

The court also granted leave to appeal the costs decision but dismissed that cross-appeal, finding no error in principle in fixing costs based on a summary procedure quantum.

Costs of the appeal were fixed at $7,000 on a partial indemnity basis.