V. Edgar

Following a jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the court determined whether long-term disability benefits received by the plaintiff from a private Manulife policy were deductible from the jury's award for past and future income loss.

The court held that the Manulife benefits met the criteria under s. 3(7)(d) of Ontario Regulation 34/10, as they were offered to employed persons and the maximum benefit was calculated with reference to employment income.

Consequently, the benefits were deemed payments under an income continuation benefit plan, making them deductible from the income loss award and subject to assignment under s. 267.8 of the Insurance Act.

The plaintiff suffered a fractured shoulder after slipping on broken glass near a donation bin located on municipal property.

The bin was owned by the defendant, who had placed it there without the city's permission.

The defendant was noted in default.

The court found that the defendant exercised sufficient control over the bin and surrounding area to be considered an 'occupier' under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The court awarded the plaintiff general damages, past and future income loss, and special damages, but dismissed her son's Family Law Act claim due to a lack of admissible evidence.

The plaintiff, a former paramedic, was involuntarily admitted to a hospital under the Mental Health Act following a situational crisis and substance abuse relapse.

While in a mental health seclusion room, he became highly agitated, wrapped his hands in fabric, and made threatening gestures toward security staff.

Pursuant to a physician's order, hospital security guards entered the room and physically restrained the plaintiff so that chemical restraints could be administered.

The plaintiff sued the hospital and the security guards, alleging unnecessary and excessive use of force, an unsafe room environment, and that his blood was taken without consent.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the security guards acted reasonably, the force used was not excessive, the room was safe, and the plaintiff had consented to the bloodwork.