Suhasha Hewagama

The court dismissed the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a motor vehicle accident case, finding that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the location of the vehicles at the time of the collision and the potential contributory negligence of the parties.

The decision reviews the summary judgment test, the reverse onus in rear-end collisions, and the application of negligence principles, concluding that conflicting evidence and credibility issues require a full trial.

The plaintiff, Titus Steel Company Limited, sued its former Vice President, Wayne Hack, and his new companies (Progressive Armor), alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of employment duties (fidelity, loyalty, good faith), misappropriation of confidential documents, conversion, and willful misconduct/gross negligence.

The court found that Hack was not a fiduciary and therefore did not breach any fiduciary duties by competing or soliciting customers post-resignation.

However, Hack did breach his employment duties and committed conversion by copying, deleting, and retaining Titus's business records.

The court found no damages for breach of confidence or the employment breaches related to documents, as Titus failed to prove loss or unauthorized use of confidential information, and a prior payment covered recovery costs.

Claims of willful misconduct/gross negligence regarding two clients were also dismissed due to lack of proof or the employer's own inconsistent conduct.

The court ordered the return of all business records to Titus.

The plaintiff, Meaghan McGuire, brought a motion for leave to amend her statement of claim to add CRH Canada Group Inc. C.O.B. Dufferin Construction Company as a defendant, following a slip and fall incident.

CRH opposed, arguing the claim was statute-barred due to an expired limitation period.

The court found that the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for the delayed discovery of CRH's involvement, noting the low evidentiary threshold for such motions.

The motion was granted, allowing CRH to plead a limitation period defence at a later stage (summary judgment or trial).

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his personal injury action, which was found to be statute-barred due to the two-year limitation period.

The motion judge concluded that the appellant's injuries were discoverable well within the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's application of discoverability principles under the Limitations Act and the threshold for serious and permanent impairment under the Insurance Act.

The Court clarified that formal medical opinions required for a threshold motion are not necessary to trigger the limitation period.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim for damages related to an oil spill caused by a corroded oil filter.

The appellant argued that the respondent's oil burner technician (OBT) breached the standard of care by failing to replace the filter, citing manufacturer instructions for annual replacement, the Ontario Installation Code for Oil-Burning Equipment, and a duty to 'tag out' the filter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the OBT was not obligated to replace the filter if it was in good condition, that manufacturer instructions were recommendations rather than requirements under the Code, and that the 'tag out' requirement did not apply as the OBT deemed the filter in good working order.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial judge's factual findings.