Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP is pleased to provide this online resource to our clients. Below is a searchable database of key cases impacting the defence of tort personal injury files. Assembled by Sarah Jones, Natasha O'Toole, and Chris Schnarr, each case is reviewed, briefly summarized, and categorized for easy access.
The Plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries and was awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as a result of a rear-end collision. The Defendant brought a threshold motion on the basis that the Plaintiff continued to work, performed a significant amount of her housekeeping duties, and was independent in her activities of daily living. Justice McMillan found...
The Plaintiff alleged injuries as a result of obtaining laser treatment at a clinic. The Defendants sought summary judgment in relation to the negligence claim on the basis of a signed consent/release. They also sought summary judgment in relation to the breach of contract and vicarious liability claims. Justice Allen denied the motion in relation...
In this motor vehicle tort claim, the Defendants refused to schedule a mediation until after the completion of discoveries. The Plaintiff wished to schedule the mediation prior to discoveries so that the action could be set down for trial as soon as possible. At a case conference, Justice Firestone held that the Defendants' position was...
The issue in this case was whether the limitation period set out in section 18(1) of the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.24 was subject to discoverability. If not, the Defendant was out of time to add a new third party. Master Jolley concluded that the limitation period was rebuttable and the Defendant was permitted...
When seeking leave under Rule 31.10 to examine a non-party, the moving party must establish that there is good reason to believe that the non-party has information relevant to a material issue, that the moving party has been unable to obtain the information from the other parties to the action as well as from the...
The Supreme Court of Canada has modified the test for granting a mandatory injunction. In sum, an applicant must now: (1) demonstrate a strong prima facie case that it will succeed at trial which includes showing a strong likelihood on the law and the evidence presented that, at trial, the applicant will ultimately be successful...
Following the Plaintiff's examination for discovery, the Defendant sought an order requiring the Plaintiff's wife to be examined for discovery. The basis for the request was that the Plaintiff had sustained a traumatic brain injury and serious memory loss as a result of the MVA and could not answer the questions posed to him on...
In this case, the Plaintiff argued that the surveillance did not satisfy the requirements of the three part test to be admissible as substantive evidence. Specifically, the Plaintiff argued that its accuracy did not truly represent the facts, that it was unfair, and that it had not been verified by a person capable of doing...
In this case, the jury awarded general damages of $1,600.00 and $1,500.00 in lost income to one Plaintiff and $11,500.00 in general damages and $5,000.00 in lost income to the other Plaintiff. Justice Gilmore concluded that neither of the Plaintiffs' non-pecuniary damage claims met the statutory threshold as both Plaintiffs were able to work and...
In cases involving "other insurance" clauses, the clauses only apply where the policies cover the same risk. In this case, the Aviva and Intact policies covered the same insured, but one was for business risks (CGL) and the other was for personal risks (homeowner's policy). As such, the "other insurance" clauses did not apply, both...
The jury awarded the Plaintiff a total of $200,000.00 in damages, including $50,000.00 in general damages. At trial, the Plaintiff testified that he could no longer work as a truck driver or ride motorcycles for recreation as a result of his injuries. Justice Charney accepted that the Plaintiff could no longer work as a truck...
The Plaintiff sued Starbucks and two individual employes for spilling hot water on her. Starbucks brought a motion to strike the claims against the individual Defendants on the basis that the Statement of Claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against either individual. The motion judge agreed and struck the claims against the...
The jury awarded the Plaintiff $15,000.00 in general damages. Justice Monahan found that while the soft-tissue pains suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of the MVA were "no doubt unpleasant and perhaps frustrating", they were still tolerable, were not serious, and did not impact an important function. The Plaintiff was also unable to explain...
Pursuant to the OAP1, certain benefits (including NEBs) are not payable to an occupant of an automobile who at the time of the MVA knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the driver was operating the automobile without the owner's consent. The Dominion wished to rely on this exclusion at trial. The Defendant sought...
Following a MVA, the Plaintiff sued the other driver, the municipalities (Durham and Clarington), the roadside lighting contractor (Langley), and the winter maintenance contractor (Miller). Zurich insured Miller and Durham was an additional insured under the Zurich policy. Dominion insured Langley and Clarington was an additional insured under the Dominion policy. Zurich and Dominion acknowledged...
The Appellant was driving his friend Baird's car in rural Ontario. Three other friends, including Baird, were passengers in the car. The Appellant lost control of the car, it moved into the oncoming lane, and it was struck by an approaching vehicle. One passenger in the Appellant's vehicle was killed and the other occupants of...
The defendant media company produced a sales video for a real estate developer. The video showed the plaintiff jogging on a walking trail. She claimed against the media company for breach of privacy, damages for appropriation of personality, and punitive damages. The court awarded the plaintiff $4,000 in damages for breach of privacy and $100...
The Ontario Court of Appeal held that a motion for partial summary judgment should be considered to be a rare procedure that is reserved for an issue or issues that may be readily bifurcated from those in the main action and that may be dealt with expeditiously and in a cost effective manner.
The Plaintiff was a tradesman and fell while performing work on the roof of the Defendants' home. The Defendants brought a motion for summary judgment. Justice Broad granted the motion on the basis that a tradesman is presumed to know how to perform roofing work and to be aware of the necessary safety equipment required...
In this case, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant after he was pushed in a parking lot and broke some teeth. The Plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment and delivered an affidavit which included correspondence between his father and the Defendant's father. In the correspondence, the Defendant's father apologized for the injury. The Plaintiff took...
The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the January 1, 2015 amendment to s. 258.3(8.1) of the Insurance Act, which reduced the default rate of prejudgment intrest for non-pecuniary losses for bodily injury or death arising from the use or operation of an automible from five percent to the bank rate at the time the...
