Tara Pollitt

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to schedule a new hearing date for a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act, following an adjournment.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing for December 13-15, 2023, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the pre-hearing requirements and the conduct of the arbitration.

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant, applied for leave to continue three existing actions and to rescind the vexatious litigant order.

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds for the proceedings and that continuing them would be an abuse of process, noting a history of unpaid costs orders and failure to advance litigation.

The court also declined to rescind the vexatious litigant order, finding the applicant had not learned from past mistakes and continued to exhibit abusive litigation behaviour.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The defendant driver brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury claim and the co-defendant municipality's crossclaim arising from a motor vehicle collision.

The plaintiff, who had a stop sign, entered the intersection and was struck by the defendant, who had the right of way.

The court found the plaintiff's expert report unreliable because it assumed the plaintiff stopped 14 meters back from the intersection, which was contrary to evidence and common sense.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendant had no reasonable opportunity to avoid the collision, and granted the motion.

The moving parties, two of the plaintiffs in a civil assault action, sought an order to relieve them from the deemed undertaking rule to use a security video, obtained through discovery, for a criminal prosecution against the individual defendants (security guards) and a police officer.

The court found that the deemed undertaking rule applied to the video as it was disclosed under compulsion, despite being provided early for tactical reasons.

The court further determined that the public interest in pursuing a criminal investigation did not outweigh the prejudice to the disclosing party (20 Vic Management Inc.) and its co-defendants, particularly the tactical leverage a concurrent criminal investigation could create in the civil action.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a slip and fall in a grocery store produce section.

The plaintiff alleged she slipped on water and/or ice originating from broccoli displayed on crushed ice.

The defendants argued they maintained a reasonable inspection and maintenance system and that the area had been inspected minutes before the fall.

The court held that conflicting evidence regarding the store’s drainage system, staff training, and compliance with inspection procedures created genuine issues requiring a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was therefore dismissed.

The plaintiff sought $150,000 in damages against a municipality for trespass and conversion after the municipality entered his property and removed debris pursuant to a clean yard by-law and an order to comply.

The plaintiff alleged that certain items removed fell outside the order and that the municipality had no right to dispose of the materials without accounting for their value.

The court held that the municipality acted within its statutory authority under the Municipal Act and its by-law, and that the power to dispose of debris was implicit or alternatively permissible under principles of bailment provided the municipality acted reasonably.

The court found the municipality acted reasonably throughout the enforcement process, including granting multiple compliance extensions and reasonably disposing of junk and scrap materials.

The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.

The insurer moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim under unidentified or uninsured motorist coverage as statute-barred.

The court applied the Court of Appeal's discoverability analysis for contractual indemnity claims against insurers, holding that the limitation period does not begin merely when the claimant learns an unidentified vehicle may have been involved.

Rather, the loss arises when the insurer fails to satisfy a valid indemnity claim after demand, provided there is no other third-party liability coverage available.

The June 2009 correspondence was found to be only notice of a potential claim, not a demand for indemnification, and the motion was dismissed.

The defendants moved to transfer a civil action from Toronto to London arising from alleged wrongful arrests, unlawful detention, Charter breaches, negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, and assault and battery by London police.

Applying Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the claim arose in London, the local community had a strong interest in the subject matter, and the convenience of parties and numerous witnesses substantially favoured London.

Although the plaintiff relied on medical evidence suggesting that a London trial would exacerbate anxiety and related symptoms, the court was not persuaded that this outweighed the other factors, particularly given the plaintiff's ongoing participation in family proceedings in London.

The motion was granted and the file was ordered transferred to London.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to comply with undertakings and refusals arising from an examination for discovery in a motor vehicle accident action.

The requests included production of treatment records, social assistance files, a pain diary, a supplementary affidavit of documents, and Facebook materials.

The court held that the plaintiff could not be compelled to obtain clinical records where the provider refused release pending payment, and that social assistance files were not relevant to the issues in dispute.

The court also found the plaintiff’s pain diary was protected by litigation privilege and that the defendants failed to establish relevance for additional Facebook production.

Although the court confirmed the plaintiff’s obligation to provide a supplementary affidavit of documents under Rule 30.07, the motion as framed was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order compelling the plaintiff to undergo an in-home occupational therapy assessment in a personal injury action involving a substantial claim for future care costs.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that occupational therapists are not “health practitioners” under s. 105(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and that the proposed assessment was not required for diagnostic purposes.

The court reviewed conflicting authorities regarding whether non-medical expert assessments may be ordered only as diagnostic aids or under the court’s inherent jurisdiction in the interests of fairness.

Relying on Divisional Court authority recognizing the court’s inherent jurisdiction, the judge held that the assessment was appropriate to permit an independent evaluation of the plaintiff’s limitations and future care needs.

The motion was granted and the plaintiff was ordered to attend the in-home occupational therapy assessment.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order requiring the plaintiff to undergo three defence medical assessments by a psychiatrist, a neurologist, and a neuropsychologist.

The appellants did not object to the neuropsychologist but challenged the other two.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the neurologist, finding the motion judge reasonably relied on the neuropsychologist's evidence that a neurological exam was necessary to determine organic brain injury.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding the psychiatrist, as there was no evidence explaining why a psychiatric assessment was warranted in addition to the other examinations.