Stuart A. Zacharias

The minor plaintiff, Bayden Zachary Azzeh, brought a motion to add the City of Greater Sudbury and other parties as defendants in an action for traumatic brain injuries sustained in a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The City opposed, arguing prejudice due to late addition, an expired limitation period, and failure to meet the Municipal Act's ten-day notice requirement.

The court found no uncompensable prejudice to the City, determined the limitation period for the minor did not run until a litigation guardian was appointed (June 2014 at earliest), and accepted that being an infant constituted a reasonable excuse for the initial lack of municipal notice.

The court further found that the subsequent litigation guardian provided notice within ten days of her appointment.

The motion to add the City as a defendant was granted, and other parties were added by consent, with the order made nunc pro tunc.

The moving municipality sought summary judgment dismissing a negligence claim arising from the collapse of a common wall after a major fire destroyed the plaintiff’s building.

The motion turned on whether the municipality, having inspected the fire-damaged building, arguably owed a duty to inspect the adjoining property for fire damage and safety risks, notwithstanding statutory protection for acts or omissions of a registered code agency.

The court held that the evidentiary record, including the municipality’s expert report and the circumstances of the fire, left genuine issues requiring a trial on potential municipal liability for failing to inspect the adjoining property.

Summary judgment was refused and the responding party received partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel production of a defence vocational assessment report following an examination of the injured plaintiff conducted by a vocational rehabilitation expert retained by the defendant municipality.

The defendant refused production, arguing the assessor was not a "health practitioner" within the meaning of s.105 of the Courts of Justice Act and therefore Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Procedure did not require disclosure.

The court held that examinations conducted on consent are analogous to court‑ordered examinations under Rule 33.08 and therefore trigger the mandatory disclosure obligation in Rule 33.06.

The court further held that a party cannot avoid production simply by asserting that the assessor is not a statutory health practitioner or by electing not to rely on the report at trial.

The defendant was ordered to produce the report forthwith in the interests of fairness and full disclosure.

Following dismissal of the plaintiffs’ motions, the defendant municipality sought an award of costs.

The court had previously directed written submissions and a bill of costs.

The plaintiffs filed no responding submissions.

The court accepted the defendant’s partial indemnity calculation as standard and unchallenged and exercised its discretion to fix costs rather than assess them.

Costs were fixed in favour of the defendant municipality.

The municipal defendant sought leave to appeal a motion judge’s refusal to grant summary judgment dismissing a negligence claim as statute‑barred under s. 44(8)(b) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The underlying action arose from a motor vehicle collision in which the plaintiff’s vehicle struck a pole located on a median.

The moving party argued the undisputed facts permitted determination of the statutory bar on summary judgment.

The court held there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge’s decision and that the proposed appeal raised issues of importance concerning interpretation of the statutory immunity provision and the proper use of summary judgment.

Leave to appeal was granted.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence claim arising from a motor vehicle collision.

The plaintiff's vehicle was struck by another driver who ran a red light, causing the plaintiff's vehicle to collide with a rigid traffic signal pole on a raised median, resulting in severe brain injuries.

The plaintiffs alleged the municipality was negligent for failing to install a breakaway pole.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding liability, causation, and whether the claim was statute-barred under s. 44(8) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as the full appreciation test could not be met on the motion record.