3 total
The court dismissed the defendant's motion for leave to appeal a summary judgment dismissal in a slip and fall case.
The defendant, Walmart Canada Corp., brought a motion for leave to appeal an order by Justice Barnes that dismissed Walmart's motion for summary judgment.
Justice Barnes had found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the plaintiff's slip and fall claim and declined to use enhanced fact-finding powers.
The current court, presided over by Emery J., dismissed Walmart's motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of Justice Barnes' order.
The court also determined that the issues raised did not transcend the private interests of the parties to become a matter of public importance, thus failing to meet the strict test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4).
Summary judgment denied in slip and fall case due to genuine issues of credibility and inspection.
The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's slip and fall claim.
The plaintiff alleged she slipped on liquid on the floor, while the defendant argued there was no liquid and it had a reasonable system of inspection.
The court granted the defendant leave to bring the motion after the action was set down for trial.
However, the court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding credibility, whether there was liquid on the floor, and whether the defendant's employees actually followed the system of inspection.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to amend the statement of claim, finding the proposed change of defendant was not a misnomer but an impermissible addition of a new party after the limitation period expired.
The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to amend her statement of claim to change the defendant's name from "Sheraton Hotels and Resorts" to "Four Points by Sheraton Toronto Airport" and to change the location of the alleged slip and fall.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that it was not a case of misnomer but an attempt to add a new party after the limitation period had expired.
The court found no evidence to support the plaintiff's claim of misnomer or that the proposed defendant had timely notice of the incident, and noted significant prejudice to the proposed defendant.