Toronto Personal Injury Law Blog

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

Owners of 235,855 General Motors vehicles in Ontario and nationwide might have been informed that their vehicles are part of a recall that recently added four more models. A total of 1.37 million vehicles are affected by the recall action due to concern that a faulty ignition switch could lead to car accidents after shutting off the engines and electrical systems unexpectedly.

The danger to motorists after such an event is compounded by the fact that the vehicles’ airbags will not inflate without the electrical system being operational.… Continue Reading

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

A family of four went tobaggoning on a reservoir property owned by the City of Hamilton, in an area where tobogganing was expressly prohibited (but this was not known by the family). After their two children went down the hill, the plaintiff father went down, hit a ridge and overturned, and badly injured himself, including a crushed L1 vertebrae, chronic pain and depression. The mother and father eventually ended their 19 year marriage alleging that the father’s changed personality after this accident was the main reason.… Continue Reading

A family of four went tobaggoning on a reservoir property owned by the City of Hamilton, in an area where tobogganing was expressly prohibited (but this was not known by the family). After their two children went down the hill, the plaintiff father went down, hit a ridge and overturned, and badly injured himself, including a crushed L1 vertebrae, chronic pain and depression. The mother and father eventually ended their 19 year marriage alleging that the father’s changed personality after this accident was the main reason.… Continue Reading

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