Talaal Faris Bond

The Riggi defendants brought a motion for a declaration that a prior "all-inclusive" settlement of $20,000 for a motor vehicle accident claim was valid and enforceable, and for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs, including the main plaintiff and Family Law Act (FLA) claimants, opposed the motion, arguing that no valid settlement was reached, or if it was, it was unconscionable, unfair, and would result in injustice.

The court found that a valid and enforceable settlement had been reached between the main plaintiff and the Riggi defendants, and that the FLA claims, being derivative, were also settled.

The court declined to set aside the settlement, finding no evidence of unconscionability or that the defendants took advantage of any inequality.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, enforcing the settlement and dismissing the claims against the Riggi defendants.

The moving party, State Farm, brought a motion to quash a judicial review application commenced by the responding party, Waldock, regarding two interlocutory orders made by delegates of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

The court granted the motion to quash the judicial review of a procedural order regarding the appeal record, finding it premature.

However, the court dismissed the motion to quash the judicial review of an order that pre-emptively enjoined the responding party from seeking clarification from the arbitrator, finding exceptional circumstances and a potential breach of natural justice that warranted judicial review.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident, arguing it was statute-barred.

The intervener, the plaintiff's former counsel, opposed the motion, while the plaintiff took no position.

The court determined that the limitation period began to run when the plaintiff's injuries could reasonably qualify as "permanent serious impairment" under the Insurance Act, which was found to be upon receipt of an independent medical examination report in November 2010, or at the latest, when the first statement of claim was issued in December 2011.

As the action against the correct defendant was commenced in December 2014, it was outside the two-year limitation period.

The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the plaintiff's claim.

The appellant suffered a severe brain injury after being assaulted by an intoxicated patron outside a pub.

He sued the patron and the pub, relying on the civil liability provisions of s. 39 of the Liquor Licence Act.

At trial, the jury found the patron 100% responsible and dismissed the claim against the pub.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misdirected the jury by instructing them that liability under s. 39 requires reasonable foreseeability of harm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 39 requires a risk assessment and is breached only if a patron is over-served to the point where it is reasonably foreseeable they might injure another person.