Stephen R. Schenke

The Plaintiffs brought a motion to correct misnomers and add several corporate entities as defendants in an action stemming from a fire.

The motion sought to correct the name of "Cooper Lighting Internacional, S. de R.L. de C.V." to "Cooper Lighting de Mexico S. de R.L. de C.V." and to add "Cooper Lighting LLC""Cooper Lighting Canada Limited""SLP Lighting LLC""Koller Enterprises", and "David Koller".

Applying the principles of misnomer from Loy-English, the court found that the "litigation finger" pointed at the Cooper Lighting entities and SLP Lighting LLC, allowing their addition/correction despite delays.

However, the requests to add Koller Enterprises and David Koller were dismissed due to insufficient evidence of their direct involvement as manufacturers or distributors.

The court exercised its discretion to grant the amendments, noting the lack of non-compensable prejudice to the proposed defendants and shared responsibility for litigation delays.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Edwards dated June 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered costs in the amount of $5,000 to be paid to the responding parties within thirty days, to be divided among them as they deem reasonable.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to enforce a settlement against the plaintiff estate, the court determined the issue of costs.

The defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity scale totaling over $67,000.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the need for proportionality given the settlement amount of $105,000.

The court awarded costs to the defendants in the total amount of $45,000, payable by the estate.

The plaintiff, Torsten Klasen, commenced a $15,000,000 claim in Toronto, which was subsequently transferred to Windsor by order of Howard J. with costs of $3,500 payable by Klasen.

Klasen failed to pay these costs for approximately 17 months.

The defendants, 469311 Ontario Ltd. (Myers Towing) and Elaine Myers, brought a motion to strike Klasen's claim against them due to the non-payment of costs and the frivolous nature of the claim.

The court found Klasen's actions consistent with an intent to drive up costs and complicate proceedings, and that he demonstrated no intention to be responsible for the costs.

The motion was granted, striking Klasen's claim against the moving defendants and awarding them $1,500 in costs for the current motion.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action for injuries sustained in a slip and fall on an icy, sloped municipal boulevard connecting to a private driveway.

She argued the municipality owed a higher standard of maintenance because pedestrians occasionally cross there, and that the adjacent property owner was an occupier of the boulevard.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the municipality's maintenance standard was for vehicles, not pedestrians, and the adjacent owner did not exercise control over the boulevard to qualify as an occupier.

The moving defendants sought summary dismissal of a cross‑claim arising from a three‑vehicle motor vehicle collision.

The responding defendants alleged the moving defendants’ excessive speed caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries.

The court held that causation regarding speed and injury severity required expert evidence and that the responding defendants had produced none.

Given the expert reconstruction evidence filed by the moving defendants indicating the collision was unavoidable and injuries would have been similar at the posted speed limit, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary dismissal of the cross‑claim.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her counterclaim and a subsequent motion to set aside the judgment.

At trial, the appellant asked the trial judge to recuse himself because his former law firm had represented one of the defendants over ten years prior.

The judge refused, noting he had no personal involvement in the file and a significant amount of time had passed.

The appellant and her counsel then left the courtroom, leading the judge to dismiss the counterclaim.

Days later, the judge realized he had a past association with another defendant and informed the parties, but later dismissed a motion to set aside the judgment as he was functus officio.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and noting that the appellant's abandonment of the trial left the judge with no other option but to dismiss the counterclaim.

The insured suffered a severe brain injury in a motor vehicle accident and required 24-hour attendant care.

The insurer paid benefits based on the minimum wage hourly rates set out in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The insured claimed she was entitled to higher hourly rates to reach the maximum monthly benefit.

The Court of Appeal held that the hourly rates set out in s. 50(10) of the SABS are mandatory and cannot be disputed by the insured, allowing the insurer's appeal.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Alberta involving Alberta residents.

He returned to Ontario, where he received medical treatment and suffered ongoing damages.

He sued the defendants in Ontario, serving them outside the jurisdiction under Rule 17.02(h).

The defendants moved to stay the action, arguing the rule was ultra vires and that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or was forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Rule 17.02(h) is procedural and constitutional.

The court established an eight-factor test for determining whether a real and substantial connection exists to assume jurisdiction over out-of-province defendants, concluding that jurisdiction was properly assumed and Ontario was the appropriate forum.