Case Law › Superior Court of Justice of Ontario

[1]           The applicant owns a one-storey industrial building at 248-250 Bridgeland Avenue which backs onto Highway 401 near the Yorkdale Shopping Mall in Toronto (the “Building”).  The applicant has a sign atop the Building (the “Sign”) currently advertising personal injury litigation services for Diamond & Diamond LLP.

[1]           This case involves a civil action by parents who were charged criminally with abusing their children and who now have brought claims against the police and Crown officials responsible for those charges. The question before me is whether those claims should be dismissed or sustained on summary judgment, or whether those claims are justified in moving forward to a trial, based on the...

[1]           This application arises out of a third mortgage that the applicant held on a property known as 189-195 Milner Ave. in Toronto.

[1]           On December 26, 2013 the plaintiff and the defendant were involved in a car accident at the corner of Steeles Avenue and New Westminster Dr. in Toronto at approximately 6:30 PM.  It was dark when the accident occurred.  In addition, the traffic lights at the intersection were not operating.  The damage to the vehicles appears to have been relatively minor.  Neither police nor...

[1]           In my Endorsement in this matter, released on September 27, 2019, I requested costs submissions from Ms. Duncan and Mr. Lepp, which I have now received. 

[1]           In the course of this personal injury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on November 7, 2012, the plaintiff sought to call Dr. Stephen Brown and have him qualified as an expert witness on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pain in order to give opinion evidence on the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s pain, its causes, evolution and how it interferes...

[1]           After the jury retired to consider its verdict in this personal injury motor vehicle matter, the defendant brought a “threshold” motion, arguing that the plaintiff’s claim for non-pecuniary  damages and health care expenses is barred on the basis that her injuries do not fall within the exceptions to the statutory immunity  provided for in s. 267.5(3) and (5) of the Insurance Act,...

[1]           In reasons released on September 11, 2019, I granted judgement for the defendants in accordance with a settlement which I found to be binding. At the conclusion of my reasons, I found that the defendants were entitled to costs of this motion, if demanded, and said that submissions could be made to me as to quantum, if necessary.