416-703-2402 Local
1-888-378-3388 Toll Free

Posts Tagged: summary judgment motion

Suing Unidentified Ontario Driver: Corroborative Evidence Required

The Issue: In this interesting case, the plaintiff driver hit another car from behind. She sued her own insurance company, alleging that another vehicle, whose identity she does not have, drove dangerously in front or beside her, causing her to take avoidance maneuvers and thereby hit the car in front of her: Chmielewski v Pishchak, 2014 CanLII 7592 (ON SC)

This summary judgment motion, brought by the insurer responding to this unidentified driver claim, was based upon the provisions related to Ontario’s insurance coverage regarding unidentified vehicles – the OAP-1 and the OPCF R44.… Continue Reading

Brampton Sidewalk Slip and Fall – Knee Surgery: Claim Dismissed

A 51 year old electrician recently had his personal injury lawsuit, against the City of Brampton, dismissed on a summary judgment motion that considered the new directions given by theHryniak decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. The issue was whether the plaintiff’s failure to give notice to Brampton, within 10 days of slip and fall, was fatal to his claim against the City. Due to lack of knowledge, this plaintiff did not give notice to the City of Brampton until approximately 18 months post-accident.… Continue Reading

Ontario Summary Judgment: Applies Hryniak re Scheduling of Motion Issues

As we recently blogged on February 24, 2014, the new Hryniak decision by the Supreme Court of Canada is now the standard for how Ontario summary judgment motions are to be conducted and their role in the litigation process.

We now have an early case which has put into practice some of the greater powers confirmed by Hryniak – in this case, the issue is what role the summary judgment Judge has in the management of motion materials and the necessity of calling witnesses for oral testimony, in order to have a proper record available by which to consider the summary judgment motion:The Bank of Nova Scotia v.… Continue Reading

Tags: , , ,

Toronto House Destroyed by Fire: Denial Based on Contract Wording

Interesting case where the fight was over a $345,000 replacement cost provision within theresidential / homeowner’s insurance policy: Willoughby v. Pilot Insurance Company, 2014 ONSC 95 (CanLII)

There was no fight over the cause of the fire (i.e. fraud was not alleged) nor whether there was valid coverage available. Instead, the plaintiff homeowners decided to buy another home instead of building a new structure on their existing, fire-damaged lot.

It’s curious as to why this fight arose, particularly since the fire happened about 4.5 years before this summary judgment motion was heard.… Continue Reading

Slip and Fall on City Property – Act Quickly if You Are Hurt

If you hurt yourself on City property, which most commonly is a slip and fall on ice, snow or an uneven sidewalk, then you have 10 days to notify the City in writing of your incident – s. 44(10) of the Municipal Act.

Most people do not know that they have 10 days to notify the City of their accident.

NOTE: if you are hurt and seek medical treatment (whether you are hospitalized or attending at your family doctor’s clinic), the 10 day period still applies unless you fall under a narrow exception of circumstances.… Continue Reading