Suhaib Ibrahim

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing his civil action as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant had been charged with stunt driving and related offences under the Highway Traffic Act, resulting in the seizure of his vehicle for seven days.

He subsequently sued for $75,000 in punitive damages and $2,100 in travel expenses, alleging the seizure constituted theft without his consent or court order.

The motion judge found the claim had no legal merit and dismissed it.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the claim was incapable of success on its face and rejecting arguments that the seizure violated Charter rights or the property rights of the vehicle owner.

The applicants sought court approval for a minor's settlement arising from a dog bite incident and the appointment of a litigation guardian.

The court approved the settlement and the litigation guardian appointment but found the contingency fee agreement between the applicants and their counsel to be unfair and unreasonable due to lack of clarity, non-compliance with regulations, and inclusion of costs without exceptional circumstances.

The court reduced the counsel's fee from the proposed 33% to 20% of the minor applicant's recovery, plus disbursements and HST.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendants moved to compel the plaintiff to attend a defence medical examination by an orthopedic surgeon.

The plaintiff agreed to attend only if the defendants disclosed counsel’s letter of instruction to the expert.

The court held that litigation privilege protects the instructing letter at the time the examination is arranged and when the expert report is served under Rule 33.06.

However, if the party later elects to call the expert at trial, the privilege is subject to an implied waiver and the instructing letter must be produced as foundational information relating to the expert’s opinion under Rule 53.03.

The plaintiff was ordered to attend the examination without disclosure of the instructing letter at this stage.

The municipal defendant brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury claim arising from a slip and fall on a city sidewalk.

The court held that under s. 42(5) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 the plaintiff was required to establish gross negligence in the City's winter maintenance of the sidewalk.

Evidence showed the municipality had a winter maintenance program and sanding occurred shortly before the incident, while the plaintiff's evidence only indicated that he did not notice salt or sand.

The court further found the plaintiff failed to provide the statutory 10‑day notice of claim and did not establish a reasonable excuse or absence of prejudice to the municipality.

Summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.