In this case, the Plaintiff was at a TD branch in Scarborough in May 2013, using a bank machine in the vestibule during the evening. As he was leaving, he started a fight with two young men waiting behind him. The Plaintiff was badly beaten as seen on surveillance video, leaving him with lasting impairments. The Plaintiff’s attacker was charged and subsequently convicted, having to serve significant jail time. The Plaintiff sued the two young men, who never defended the action, as well as TD. The Plaintiff alleged that TD had failed to keep him safe, by not having a security guard in place, not having conducted a “risk assessment” and letting the bank machine be open at night in a supposedly high crime neighborhood. David Zuber brought a summary judgment motion on behalf of TD which was ultimately heard in March 2020. The motion judge, Justice LeMay, took over a year to write his decision, and released it in September 2021, granting TD’s motion for summary judgment motion and dismissing the action.

The Plaintiff appealed based on three issues: (i) the availability of summary judgment in a civil action in which a party served a jury notice; (ii) the motion judge’s exclusion of expert evidence; and (iii) the fairness of the summary judgment process used in this case. The Court of Appeal found no merit to any of the Plaintiff’s arguments and dismissed the appeal in favour of TD.

This will likely be the leading case on the importance of jury notices in the context of a summary judgment motion.

Click here to see more details 

Great work Glen Bushi and team who were able to achieve a favorable result for our client at the License Appeal Tribunal in Ahmed v. BelairDirect, 2023 ONLAT 21-006910/AABS.

The issues in dispute were as follows:

1. Are the Applicant’s injuries predominantly minor as defined in s.3 of the Schedule and therefore subject to treatment within the $3,500.00 limit?
2. Is the Applicant entitled to a non-earner benefit of $185.00 per week from April 29, 2019 to April 1, 2021?
3. Is the Applicant entitled to the cost of a chronic pain assessment in the amount of $2,200.00 and a psychological assessment in the amount of $2,179.22?
4. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?

The LAT concluded that based on the medical record available to it and the evidence given by the Applicant during his Examination in Chief and Cross-examination, the Applicant’s injuries were predominantly minor in nature. Further, the LAT concluded that the Applicant was not entitled to non-earner benefits as he had failed to show that “he suffers from a complete inability to carry on a normal life within 104 weeks of the accident”. The LAT further concluded that the Applicant is not entitled to the cost of the examinations. To read the full decision, please click on the link below.

Click Here 

This appeal involved a jurisdictional issue with respect to a water taxi accident in Venice, Italy. The issue in this appeal was whether the fourth presumptive connecting factor in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, a contract connected with the dispute was made in the province, gave the Ontario Superior Court of Justice jurisdiction over the appellants (3 Italian companies) with respect to the action commenced by the respondents. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and stayed the action against the appellants. The majority of the Court of Appeal found that the fourth presumptive connecting factor was not established and further found that in the alternative the appellants had rebutted the presumption. This is a significant decision in the context of jurisdictional claims. At paragraph 44 the Court noted that “If the decision of the motion judge were to be upheld, it would have sweeping implications. It would mean that any person who books a trip through a credit card company that provides travel services and carries on business in Ontario would, through that fact alone, extend the jurisdiction of this province’s courts to anyone who may subsequently become involved in those travel arrangements, regardless of where in the world that involvement occurs. In my view, that result would constitute the very type of jurisdictional overreach that the decision in Van Breda was cautioning against.”
To read the full decision, please click on the link below.

Click Here