Tina H. Lie

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision that found the respondent not liable in a multi-vehicle motor vehicle accident.

The motion judge had relied on the appellant's evidence, another witness, and the accident report, while rejecting the respondent's own evidence about her position in the queue due to inconsistencies with physical damage.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a claim arising from a land purchase agreement involving residential development lands in Oshawa.

The plaintiff alleged that the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and related Omnibus Agreement required a post-closing readjustment of the purchase price where the net developable area of the lands was later reduced.

The court held that the contracts did not provide for post-closing adjustments to the purchase price, and that the closing adjustments based on the consultant’s calculation of net developable area were final.

The plaintiff’s later attempt to rely on a recalculation based on modified development constraints was not conducted using the contractual definition of net developable area and was based on the purchaser’s subsequent development choices.

Interpreting the agreements to allow indefinite post-closing adjustments would create commercial uncertainty and absurdity.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the claim.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict and a trial judge's decision dismissing her action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The jury found that the appellant had recovered from her injuries and awarded $58,000 for loss of competitive advantage, while the trial judge ruled she did not meet the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury's conclusion on causation was supported by the evidence and not internally inconsistent, and that the trial judge properly dismissed the action because the appellant failed to establish that her ongoing medical issues were caused by the accident.

The applicant, a probationary police constable, developed severe obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) characterized by a fear of contamination from blood and bodily fluids.

After several incidents where his condition compromised officer and public safety, he was placed on medical leave.

Medical evidence indicated his prognosis for returning to front-line duties was poor and he faced a high risk of relapse.

The respondent informed the applicant of its intention to recommend termination of his probationary status due to an inability to accommodate his disability without undue hardship.

The applicant subsequently resigned his constable position and accepted a civilian role.

The Tribunal dismissed the human rights application, finding that the respondent satisfied both the procedural and substantive components of the duty to accommodate, as the applicant's condition posed a serious health and safety risk that could not be accommodated in a front-line policing role.

The appellants, a law firm and its partner, appealed a partial summary judgment finding that a cause of action for solicitor's negligence had been validly assigned to the respondent, Gentra Canada.

The Court of Appeal held that a claim for solicitor's negligence is assignable if the assignee has a legitimate commercial interest, departing from older jurisprudence.

The Court found the assignment language was broad enough to include the claim and that Gentra Canada could sue in its own name without joining the assignor.

However, the appeal was allowed with respect to a subsidiary company that was not a party to the assignment.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following the hearing of two appeals.

The Van Breda respondents and the Charron respondents were each awarded costs fixed at $45,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The respondents Hola Sun Holidays Limited and Bel Air Travel Group Ltd. were each awarded costs fixed at $10,000.

No costs were ordered for or against the interveners.

The appellants, out-of-province resort operators, appealed decisions dismissing their motions to stay or dismiss personal injury actions for want of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal convened a five-judge panel to reconsider the Muscutt test for assumed jurisdiction.

The Court modified the Muscutt test by elevating the weight given to Rule 17.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, creating a presumption of a real and substantial connection for most of its subrules.

The Court also collapsed the fairness factors and clarified the distinction between jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens.

Applying the revised test, the Court found a real and substantial connection between Ontario and the appellants in both cases and upheld the motion judges' decisions that Ontario was the appropriate forum.