Victor Thomas Bulger

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision barring her civil action against the respondents for injuries sustained in a parking lot fall.

The Tribunal found that although the applicant was paid by a numbered company, the respondent Sargent Farms Limited was her de facto employer and she was in the course of her employment at the time of the accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's conclusion that the respondent extensively controlled her employment was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

Following a successful application to refer a solicitor’s contingency fee account for assessment, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs payable to the applicant.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the complexity of the proceeding, the conduct of the parties, proportionality, and the reasonable expectations of the losing party.

Although the applicant sought over $38,000 in partial‑indemnity costs, the court found that amount excessive despite acknowledging that the respondent solicitor’s conduct unnecessarily prolonged the proceeding.

Balancing fairness and proportionality, the court fixed costs at a reduced amount.

The applicant sought an order referring her former solicitor’s account for assessment following settlement of a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The solicitor had acted under a retainer providing for payment of up to 30% of any recovery and deducted his fee from settlement funds received in trust.

The court held that the retainer constituted a contingency fee agreement within the meaning of the Solicitors Act and failed to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements, including provisions governing contingency fee agreements and the need for court approval where a minor was represented by a litigation guardian.

Although the account had already been paid, the court found special circumstances justifying an assessment, including statutory non‑compliance, lack of required court approval, concerns about the work performed relative to the fee charged, and the involuntary nature of the payment.

The solicitor’s account was therefore referred for assessment.

The defendants Garan, Lucow, Miller P.C. and Thomas W. Emery succeeded in their motion for a stay and sought costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded them partial indemnity costs fixed at $4,000, payable jointly and severally by the plaintiffs and the co-defendant Kingsway General Insurance Company.

The moving parties, a Michigan lawyer and his law firm, sought a stay of proceedings pending their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of jurisdiction simpliciter.

The moving parties argued that if they were forced to file a statement of defence, it might constitute an attornment to Ontario's jurisdiction, rendering their leave application moot and causing irreparable harm.

The Court of Appeal applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the leave application raised a serious issue, the potential for attornment constituted irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured granting a stay against all parties due to the intertwined nature of the claims.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the appeal, which was successfully resisted by the appellants.

The Court of Appeal awarded the appellants their costs of the motion on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $4,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellants, a Michigan law firm and one of its members, appealed an order finding that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had jurisdiction over the claims against them and that Ontario was the forum conveniens.

The plaintiffs, an Ontario transportation company and its president, sued the appellants for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty arising from their representation in a Michigan action.

The Court of Appeal applied the Muscutt factors and upheld the motions judge's finding of a real and substantial connection to Ontario, emphasizing the multiplicity of parties and the risk of inconsistent findings.

The Court also upheld the finding that Michigan was not clearly the more appropriate forum, dismissing the appeal.

The defendants appealed an order dismissing their motion to stay or dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction over out-of-province defendants and forum non conveniens.

The respondent moved to quash the appeal, arguing the order was interlocutory and should have been appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to quash, holding that an order dismissing a jurisdictional challenge based on a lack of real and substantial connection deprives the defendant of a substantive right and is therefore a final order for the purposes of appeal.

The plaintiffs were injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an intoxicated off-duty employee of the defendant employer.

The employee had consumed alcohol before, during, and after his shift, but the employer was unaware of his intoxication on the night in question.

The plaintiffs argued the employer owed them a duty of care because the employee was enrolled in an Employee Assistance Program for alcoholism.

The Court of Appeal held that the employer did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs, as the duty to provide a safe workplace does not extend to protecting the public from an employee's off-duty conduct.

The court also held that non-protected defendants are entitled to deduct collateral benefits from damage awards under section 267(1) of the Insurance Act.

The moving party sought security for costs of an appeal from a summary judgment dismissing the action against him.

The court held that, although the criteria under rule 56.01(1)(d) were met, the determinative question was whether it was just to order security.

Given the appellants' insufficient assets in Ontario and the risk that appeal costs would be unrecoverable from non-resident parties, the court found it just to order further security.

The request to set security on a solicitor-client scale was refused because the appeal was not frivolous and raised a serious issue.

Security for costs of the appeal was fixed at $20,000, with costs of the motion to the moving party.