Taylor Casement

The self-represented plaintiff sought leave to amend his statement of claim against his former lawyers for negligence, specifically to include allegations related to the dismissal of a prior action (the Arcadia Action) for delay and to specify damages.

The defendants opposed, arguing abuse of process and failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, finding that a tenable cause of action was possible, but required the removal of certain statements that constituted an abuse of process by re-litigating previously decided issues.

The court also ordered the defendants to pay costs to the plaintiff.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded damages for building deficiencies against the builder and the municipality, the court determined the costs of the proceeding.

The plaintiff sought costs on a joint and several basis.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs but declined to make the order joint and several, instead apportioning liability for costs 65% to the municipality and 35% to the builder based on the relative amounts recovered.

The municipality was also awarded costs on its successful cross-claim against the builder.

The court issued supplementary reasons to correct three calculation errors in its original judgment (2020 ONSC 3060).

The errors involved the cost of insulating a wall, the omission of alternate living expenses and general damages from the judgment against Mark Grand, and an incorrect contingency reduction applied to damages payable by the Town of Bracebridge.

The corrections resulted in an increase in Mark Grand's liability for repair costs and out-of-pocket expenses, an increase in the total judgment against Mark Grand to include alternate living expenses and general damages, and an adjustment to the joint and several liability of the Town of Bracebridge and Mark Grand for damages.

The plaintiff purchased a renovated property from one defendant, discovering numerous building deficiencies.

He sued the seller for negligent construction and breach of the Ontario Building Code, and the municipality for negligent inspections and breach of statutory duty under the Building Code Act.

The court found the seller liable for negligent construction and breach of contract, and the municipality jointly and severally liable for conceded deficiencies that should have been caught during inspections.

The plaintiff's claim for contributory negligence was dismissed.

Damages were awarded for repairs, out-of-pocket expenses, alternate living expenses, and general damages.

The municipality's crossclaim against the seller for contribution and indemnity was granted, while the seller's crossclaim against the municipality was dismissed.

The defendant snow removal contractor brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' slip and fall action against it.

The plaintiff slipped and fell on a snow-covered, icy parking lot at an apartment building.

The contractor argued it had fulfilled its winter maintenance obligations.

The court found that the contractor had been hired to remove a significant accumulation of ice but failed to clear the ice between parked cars, where the plaintiff fell.

The court concluded there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding whether the contractor breached the standard of care, and dismissed the motion.