Ziv Tsimerman

The plaintiff sued the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) for negligence after falling on a bus with a wet floor.

The court examined the bus driver's standard of care, considering the TTC's operator manual and the prevailing weather conditions.

The court found that the driver operated the bus reasonably and prudently, and the plaintiff's fall was not reasonably foreseeable.

Consequently, the action for negligence was dismissed.

The court also made hypothetical findings on causation and contributory negligence, determining that if negligence had been found, the plaintiff would have been 75% contributorily negligent.

The plaintiff, Amanda Valentine, obtained a jury verdict in a motor vehicle action, exceeding her Rule 49 offers.

The defendant, Sebastian Rodriguez-Elizalde, admitted liability but made no monetary settlement offers, forcing a trial.

The court determined the plaintiff was entitled to partial indemnity costs to the date of her second Rule 49 offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, as the judgment was more favorable than her offer.

The court rejected the plaintiff's request for a remedial costs penalty under the Insurance Act, finding the insurer did not breach its duty to settle expeditiously or participate in mediation, despite its "hardball" approach.

The court fixed total costs, including reduced disbursements, at $172,000.

Following a jury verdict awarding damages for a motor vehicle collision, the trial judge determined collateral benefits, the statutory threshold for non-pecuniary loss, and the applicable deductible.

The plaintiff's award for future housekeeping was reduced to nil due to collateral benefits.

The defendant's threshold motion, brought after the jury verdict, was considered by the trial judge as required by statute.

The court found that while the plaintiff's impairments were permanent and important, they did not meet the "serious impairment" criterion under the Insurance Act and O. Reg. 461/96, particularly regarding substantial interference with employment or daily living activities, and lack of evidence on accommodation efforts.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss was barred, and the $30,000 general damages award was reduced to nil.

The court also clarified that the indexed deductible amount in place at the time of the threshold determination applies, not the amount at the time of the accident.