Tino Kasi

Following the release of its reasons allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal directed the parties to agree on the quantum of trial costs payable to the successful appellant.

The parties agreed on the amount, and the court ordered the respondent to pay the appellant trial costs in the agreed-upon sum of $250,000, all inclusive.

The appellant's employee drove a crop sprayer across a private bridge on the respondent's farm.

The bridge collapsed because the outer three feet on either side were unsupported by steel beams, a hidden danger of which the driver was not warned.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the driver's failure to stay centered caused the accident and the lack of warning was not a factual or legal cause.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred by conflating causation with the standard of care and by defining the duty to warn too narrowly.

The respondent breached its duty under s. 3(1) of the Occupiers' Liability Act by failing to warn of the hidden danger, which was both a factual and reasonably foreseeable legal cause of the accident.

The court dismissed T.C.O. Agromart Ltd.'s claim against Sutton Farms (Nacona) Ltd. for damages arising from the collapse of a private farm bridge under the weight of a crop sprayer.

The court found that the accident was caused by the driver inadvertently steering the sprayer onto an unsupported overhang, not by any breach of the duty of care by Sutton Farms.

The bridge had been used safely for decades by experienced operators, and the risk of such an accident was not reasonably foreseeable.

The court also provided a detailed analysis of damages, but found no liability.

The applicant sought judicial review of an appraisal award made under s. 128 of the Insurance Act following the destruction of her cottage by fire.

The umpire determined the replacement cost based on the respondent insurer's appraiser's estimate of the cottage's square footage, which relied on actual post-fire measurements, rather than the applicant's appraiser's reliance on a pre-purchase valuation report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the umpire's decision was reasonable and justified by the evidence, and awarded costs to the respondent.

The defendant brought a threshold motion during jury deliberations in a motor vehicle accident trial.

The jury awarded the plaintiff damages for pain and suffering, out-of-pocket expenses, and future health care costs.

The court applied the three-part test from Meyer v. Bright and found that the plaintiff suffered a permanent serious impairment of an important physical function due to chronic pain.

The defendant's threshold motion was dismissed, and the jury's award was upheld subject to statutory deductibles and collateral benefit deductions.

The defendant Amy L. Patterson moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action and cross-claim against her following a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff took no position.

The court granted leave for the motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding Ms. Patterson's liability.

The evidence indicated that Ms. Patterson, who had the right of way, could not have avoided the collision, which occurred too quickly.

The motion was granted, dismissing the action and cross-claim against Ms. Patterson, and costs were awarded to her.

On a defence production motion in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the court considered whether documents from the plaintiff's earlier accident litigation were relevant and producible.

The court held that medical and vocational reports, defence medical reports, an investigation report, and the plaintiff's prior discovery transcript were relevant to pre-existing impairment, causation, credibility, and damages.

Applying the deemed undertaking rule, the court found production was permitted where the prior defendant consented and where certain documents were not obtained through discovery.

Pleadings, motion materials, correspondence, actuarial and income loss materials, and the particulars of the prior settlement were held irrelevant.