This blog was prepared by Jennifer Stirton.
The Insurance Act has been amended by Bill 173, the Better Tomorrow for Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2011, which received Royal Assent on May 12, 2011.
The amendments relate to incidents involving public transit and make two major changes. First, owners and drivers of public transit vehicles are not protected by subsections 267.5(1), (3) and (5) of the Insurance Act, which provide threshold protections and limit income loss claims, if the public transit vehicle does not collide with another automobile or any other object in the incident. In other words, public transit drivers and owners are not protected defendants unless there is a collision. The second major change is the addition of subsection 268(1.1), which provides that occupants of public transit vehicles who are injured are not entitled to statutory accident benefits if the public transit vehicle does not collide with another automobile or any other object.
These changes are clearly aimed at passengers who allege injury arising from incidents that do not involve collisions, such as sudden start/sudden stop claims. While it will reduce the cost of accident benefits being paid, it may result in an increase in tort actions against defendants who are no longer entitled to statutory protections.
Senin, 16 Mei 2011
Rabu, 11 Mei 2011
Rule 53.03 does not Apply to Accident Benefits Assessors - Beasley not Followed
You may recall that we blogged about Justice Moore's decision in Beasley v. Barrand, which held that accident benefits assessors could not testify as they had not complied with the new r. 53 pertaining to experts. A new decision was released on April 26, 2011 which refused to follow Beasley.
In McNeill v. Filthaut, 2011 ONSC 265 (S.C.J.), the defendants sought to call DAC assessors to testify at trial. The plaintiff objected on the basis that they had not provided r. 53.03 compliant reports.
Justice MacLeod-Beliveau held that r. 53.03 does not apply to individuals retained by non-parties to the litigation.
Justice MacLeod-Beliveau held that since r. 4.1.01 (acknowledgment of expert's duty) refers to experts "engaged by a party", it does not apply to experts retained by non-parties, such as accident benefits assessors. Interpreting the rules otherwise potentially deprives the Court of relevant evidence.
There are now two different lines of decisions regarding the testimony of non-party experts. It will be necessary for the Court of Appeal to clarify this important area of the law.
In McNeill v. Filthaut, 2011 ONSC 265 (S.C.J.), the defendants sought to call DAC assessors to testify at trial. The plaintiff objected on the basis that they had not provided r. 53.03 compliant reports.
Justice MacLeod-Beliveau held that r. 53.03 does not apply to individuals retained by non-parties to the litigation.
Justice MacLeod-Beliveau held that since r. 4.1.01 (acknowledgment of expert's duty) refers to experts "engaged by a party", it does not apply to experts retained by non-parties, such as accident benefits assessors. Interpreting the rules otherwise potentially deprives the Court of relevant evidence.
There are now two different lines of decisions regarding the testimony of non-party experts. It will be necessary for the Court of Appeal to clarify this important area of the law.
Selasa, 03 Mei 2011
Costs to Unrepresented Litigant
Mustang Investigations v. Ironside et al, 2010 ONSC 3444 (Div. Ct).
Thanks to Alex Lacko, articling student, for preparing this case summary.
The plaintiff appealed from a costs order in which the motion judge awarded the self-represented defendant a counsel fee of $20,000 on the basis that he had done work ordinarily done by a lawyer.
The parties made written submissions as to costs. Mustang submitted that Ironside should receive costs limited to disbursements in a net amount of $1,541. Ironside delivered two bills of costs, the larger one for $208,138.40, inclusive of disbursements. The motion judge disallowed $87,500 claimed by Ironside as being not a proper claim for costs. The motion judge then considered the leading authority on costs to be awarded to unrepresented litigants, Fong v. Chan (1999), 46 O.R. (3d) 330, (C.A.). The motion judge correctly set forth the two principles enunciated by Sharpe J.A. and the Court of Appeal in that case in the following language:
First, the self-represented litigant should not recover costs for the time and effort that any litigant would have to devote to the case. Second, costs should only be awarded to those litigants who can demonstrate that they devoted time and effort to do the work ordinarily done by a lawyer retained to conduct the litigation and that, as a result, they incurred an opportunity cost by foregoing remunerative activity.
The motion judge interpreted the second principle as requiring a self-represented litigant to simply show that he or she did work ordinarily done by a lawyer without any reference to incurring an opportunity cost by foregoing remunerative activity.
The issue on appeal was whether the motion judge applied the correct principles for awarding costs to a self-represented litigant.
Jennings J. delivered the judgment of the Divisional Court and found that a number of cases, while purporting to apply Fong, in fact introduced a “spin” on Sharpe J.A.’s proviso to the second principle which he found troubling.
Jennings J. found that the motion judge erred by ignoring the proviso regarding an opportunity cost and further, awarding the self-represented litigant the partial indemnity costs that the plaintiff could reasonably be expected to have paid to a lawyer had one been retained by Ironside.
Justice Jennings stated that the language used by Sharpe J.A. was clear and that in order to receive costs, a lay litigant must demonstrate (1) that he or she devoted time and effort to do the work ordinarily done by a lawyer, and (2) that as a result, the litigant incurred an opportunity cost by foregoing remunerative activity. He further stated that if an opportunity cost is proved, a self-represented litigant should only receive a moderate or reasonable allowance for the loss of time devoted to preparing and presenting the case.
Several trial judges as well as a master, seem to have interpreted Fong as saying that even in the absence of proof of an opportunity cost, one may assume that because the lay person was involved in the litigation preparing material that might otherwise be prepared by a lawyer, he or she should nevertheless be entitled to nominal costs. Jennings J. wrote that:
“With great respect to the master and those judges, I’m unable to find that the language in Fong permits an award to be made without the self-represented litigant demonstrating that, as a result of the lawyer-like work put in on the file, remunerative activity was foregone. Simply stated, no proof of opportunity cost, no nominal costs available.”
Jennings J. further stated that in the case that an injustice will result, he had two responses:
(1) It is difficult to see any injustices in compensating someone for a loss not incurred; and
(2) Regardless, the principle of stare decisis does not permit this court, or judges sitting in motions, or masters, to modify a decision of the Court of Appeal.
The appeal was allowed and the award of $20,000 for counsel fee on a partial indemnity basis was set aside.
Thanks to Alex Lacko, articling student, for preparing this case summary.
The plaintiff appealed from a costs order in which the motion judge awarded the self-represented defendant a counsel fee of $20,000 on the basis that he had done work ordinarily done by a lawyer.
The parties made written submissions as to costs. Mustang submitted that Ironside should receive costs limited to disbursements in a net amount of $1,541. Ironside delivered two bills of costs, the larger one for $208,138.40, inclusive of disbursements. The motion judge disallowed $87,500 claimed by Ironside as being not a proper claim for costs. The motion judge then considered the leading authority on costs to be awarded to unrepresented litigants, Fong v. Chan (1999), 46 O.R. (3d) 330, (C.A.). The motion judge correctly set forth the two principles enunciated by Sharpe J.A. and the Court of Appeal in that case in the following language:
First, the self-represented litigant should not recover costs for the time and effort that any litigant would have to devote to the case. Second, costs should only be awarded to those litigants who can demonstrate that they devoted time and effort to do the work ordinarily done by a lawyer retained to conduct the litigation and that, as a result, they incurred an opportunity cost by foregoing remunerative activity.
The motion judge interpreted the second principle as requiring a self-represented litigant to simply show that he or she did work ordinarily done by a lawyer without any reference to incurring an opportunity cost by foregoing remunerative activity.
The issue on appeal was whether the motion judge applied the correct principles for awarding costs to a self-represented litigant.
Jennings J. delivered the judgment of the Divisional Court and found that a number of cases, while purporting to apply Fong, in fact introduced a “spin” on Sharpe J.A.’s proviso to the second principle which he found troubling.
Jennings J. found that the motion judge erred by ignoring the proviso regarding an opportunity cost and further, awarding the self-represented litigant the partial indemnity costs that the plaintiff could reasonably be expected to have paid to a lawyer had one been retained by Ironside.
Justice Jennings stated that the language used by Sharpe J.A. was clear and that in order to receive costs, a lay litigant must demonstrate (1) that he or she devoted time and effort to do the work ordinarily done by a lawyer, and (2) that as a result, the litigant incurred an opportunity cost by foregoing remunerative activity. He further stated that if an opportunity cost is proved, a self-represented litigant should only receive a moderate or reasonable allowance for the loss of time devoted to preparing and presenting the case.
Several trial judges as well as a master, seem to have interpreted Fong as saying that even in the absence of proof of an opportunity cost, one may assume that because the lay person was involved in the litigation preparing material that might otherwise be prepared by a lawyer, he or she should nevertheless be entitled to nominal costs. Jennings J. wrote that:
“With great respect to the master and those judges, I’m unable to find that the language in Fong permits an award to be made without the self-represented litigant demonstrating that, as a result of the lawyer-like work put in on the file, remunerative activity was foregone. Simply stated, no proof of opportunity cost, no nominal costs available.”
Jennings J. further stated that in the case that an injustice will result, he had two responses:
(1) It is difficult to see any injustices in compensating someone for a loss not incurred; and
(2) Regardless, the principle of stare decisis does not permit this court, or judges sitting in motions, or masters, to modify a decision of the Court of Appeal.
The appeal was allowed and the award of $20,000 for counsel fee on a partial indemnity basis was set aside.
Rabu, 27 April 2011
Threshold Motion Successful
Rajic v. Atkins, [2011] CanLII O.N.S.C. 1024 (S.C.J.)
In this Bill 59 action, the defendant brought a motion to have the action dismissed on the basis that the plaintiff failed to meet threshold after the jury retired to consider its verdict.
Justice Wilson granted the motion and dismissed the action. She found that the plaintiff was an unreliable historian and that there were comments in numerous medical reports about exaggeration, psychogenic pain and illness behavior. She found that the plaintiff’s self report could not be used as a basis for diagnosis because of the many inconsistencies in statements that he made. Since the plaintiff’s experts relied to a great extent on the truthfulness of what the plaintiff reported to them, she did not attach significant weight to their opinions.
The defendant had obtained surveillance of the plaintiff showing him engaged in various activities such as walking without a limp, carrying a 10lb bag of potatoes, clearing snow off his car, working under the hood of his car for 45 minutes, mowing the lawn, raking and bending down to pull weeds. Justice Wilson did not accept the explanation that he was having “one of his good days” when he was filmed by the investigator. Justice Wilson held that his sworn evidence at trial concerning his pain and limitations were inconsistent with the level of function demonstrated on the surveillance tapes.
Credibility is extremely important in a threshold motion and tools such as surveillance can be invaluable, as was seen in this case.
In this Bill 59 action, the defendant brought a motion to have the action dismissed on the basis that the plaintiff failed to meet threshold after the jury retired to consider its verdict.
Justice Wilson granted the motion and dismissed the action. She found that the plaintiff was an unreliable historian and that there were comments in numerous medical reports about exaggeration, psychogenic pain and illness behavior. She found that the plaintiff’s self report could not be used as a basis for diagnosis because of the many inconsistencies in statements that he made. Since the plaintiff’s experts relied to a great extent on the truthfulness of what the plaintiff reported to them, she did not attach significant weight to their opinions.
The defendant had obtained surveillance of the plaintiff showing him engaged in various activities such as walking without a limp, carrying a 10lb bag of potatoes, clearing snow off his car, working under the hood of his car for 45 minutes, mowing the lawn, raking and bending down to pull weeds. Justice Wilson did not accept the explanation that he was having “one of his good days” when he was filmed by the investigator. Justice Wilson held that his sworn evidence at trial concerning his pain and limitations were inconsistent with the level of function demonstrated on the surveillance tapes.
Credibility is extremely important in a threshold motion and tools such as surveillance can be invaluable, as was seen in this case.
Rabu, 20 April 2011
Vicarious liability of employers for sexual assault
The Manitoba Court of Appeal has recently released a case dealing with vicarious liability of an employer for sexual assault by one of its employees. The Court provides a useful summary of the principles used in determining vicarious liability, as well as a summary of case law involving employers.
In Robertson v. Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc., [2011] M.J. No. 24 (C.A), the plaintiff was an executive assistant who made plans at work with her supervisor (Hart) to socialize after work to celebrate her birthday. They went to a restaurant for dinner and then to Hart’s residence where he sexually assaulted the plaintiff. The plaintiff notified the employer about the assault, who investigated the incident and terminated the Hart’s employment. The plaintiff sued both the Hart and the employer. The employer was successful in a motion to strike the Statement of Claim and the plaintiff appealed.
The test for a finding of vicarious liability was set out by the Supreme Court in Bazley v. Curry, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 534, which the Manitoba Court of Appeal summarized as follows:
1. The test for vicarious liability should focus on whether the employer’s enterprise and empowerment of the employee materially increased the risk of the sexual assault and hence the harm;
2. The enterprise and employment must not only provide the locale or the bare opportunity for the employee to commit a wrong, it must materially enhance the risk in the sense of significantly contributing to it;
3. The appropriate inquiry is whether the employee’s wrongful act was so closely connected to the employment relationship that the imposition of vicarious liability is justified in policy and principle;
4. In determining the sufficiency of the connection between the employer’s creation or enhancement of the risk and wrong complained of, subsidiary factors will be considered such as a) the opportunity that the enterprise afforded the employee to abuse his/her power; b) the extent to which the wrongful act may have furthered the employer’s aims; c) the extent to which the wrongful act was related to friction, confrontation or intimacy inherent in the employer’s enterprise; d) the extent of power; and e) the vulnerability of potential victims to wrongful exercise of the employee’s power.
5. An incidental attack by an employee that merely happens to take place on the employer’s premises during working hours will scarcely justify holding the employer liable because such an attack is unlikely to be related to the business the employer is conducting or what the employee was asked to do, and, hence, to any risk that was created.
The court held that the facts did not support a finding that the employment went beyond providing a bare opportunity, noting that the assault did not occur in the workplace or during work hours, there was no allegation of inappropriate behaviour on prior occasions, there was no allegation that Hart exercised any power in relation to the plaintiff beyond that which is required in every supervisory position, and there was no allegation that the plaintiff was particularly vulnerable to the wrongful exercise of the Hart’s power.
In Robertson v. Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc., [2011] M.J. No. 24 (C.A), the plaintiff was an executive assistant who made plans at work with her supervisor (Hart) to socialize after work to celebrate her birthday. They went to a restaurant for dinner and then to Hart’s residence where he sexually assaulted the plaintiff. The plaintiff notified the employer about the assault, who investigated the incident and terminated the Hart’s employment. The plaintiff sued both the Hart and the employer. The employer was successful in a motion to strike the Statement of Claim and the plaintiff appealed.
The test for a finding of vicarious liability was set out by the Supreme Court in Bazley v. Curry, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 534, which the Manitoba Court of Appeal summarized as follows:
1. The test for vicarious liability should focus on whether the employer’s enterprise and empowerment of the employee materially increased the risk of the sexual assault and hence the harm;
2. The enterprise and employment must not only provide the locale or the bare opportunity for the employee to commit a wrong, it must materially enhance the risk in the sense of significantly contributing to it;
3. The appropriate inquiry is whether the employee’s wrongful act was so closely connected to the employment relationship that the imposition of vicarious liability is justified in policy and principle;
4. In determining the sufficiency of the connection between the employer’s creation or enhancement of the risk and wrong complained of, subsidiary factors will be considered such as a) the opportunity that the enterprise afforded the employee to abuse his/her power; b) the extent to which the wrongful act may have furthered the employer’s aims; c) the extent to which the wrongful act was related to friction, confrontation or intimacy inherent in the employer’s enterprise; d) the extent of power; and e) the vulnerability of potential victims to wrongful exercise of the employee’s power.
5. An incidental attack by an employee that merely happens to take place on the employer’s premises during working hours will scarcely justify holding the employer liable because such an attack is unlikely to be related to the business the employer is conducting or what the employee was asked to do, and, hence, to any risk that was created.
The court held that the facts did not support a finding that the employment went beyond providing a bare opportunity, noting that the assault did not occur in the workplace or during work hours, there was no allegation of inappropriate behaviour on prior occasions, there was no allegation that Hart exercised any power in relation to the plaintiff beyond that which is required in every supervisory position, and there was no allegation that the plaintiff was particularly vulnerable to the wrongful exercise of the Hart’s power.
Rabu, 13 April 2011
Motion to add defendants after limitation period dismissed
Higgins v. Barrie (City of), 2011 O.N.S.C. 2233 (S.C.J.)
This was a motion by the plaintiff to amend the Statement of Claim to add additional defendants after the expiry of the limitation period on the basis of discoverability.
The plaintiff slipped and fell on March 13, 2006 and alleged that the City of Barrie was negligent in failing to maintain the site of the slip and fall. Barrie’s defence was filed May 13, 2008. Examinations for Discovery took place August 5, 2010 and September 13, 2010. At the examination for discovery of the City representative, counsel advised that the proposed defendant had been contracted by the City to remove snow from the area where the plaintiff fell. The contractor had in turn subcontracted to the second proposed defendant. On November 25, 2010, Barrie’s counsel advised of the name of the subcontractor. Plaintiff’s counsel performed a corporate search on November 30, 2010 and brought a motion to add the proposed defendants December 14, 2010.
Justice DiTomaso dismissed the plaintiff’s motion. The court noted that the passing of the limitation period gives rise to a presumption of prejudice. There is a reverse onus and evidentiary burden on the plaintiff. In the circumstances, the plaintiff’s motion materials failed to disclose any evidence of pre-discovery diligence on the part of the plaintiff or his counsel to determine the identity of the proposed defendants. The motion materials failed to disclose any evidence of any reason why the plaintiff could not have taken any steps to discover the identity of the proposed defendants prior to the examination for discovery. Justice DiTomaso held that waiting 4 ½ years until the examination for discovery of a City representative to make inquiries about potential additional defendants did not amount to due diligent or reasonable efforts. The affidavit of the plaintiff’s legal assistant was totally deficient in providing evidence of due diligence or reasonable efforts made to ascertain the involvement of the proposed defendants or any other defendants. The plaintiff therefore had not met his onus and the motion was dismissed.
Justice DiTomaso’s decision is extremely useful for proposed defendants responding to a plaintiff’s motion to amend. There is a very helpful summary of the case law with respect to adding defendants and the due diligence requirement.
Thank you to Ted Key for bringing this case to our attention.
This was a motion by the plaintiff to amend the Statement of Claim to add additional defendants after the expiry of the limitation period on the basis of discoverability.
The plaintiff slipped and fell on March 13, 2006 and alleged that the City of Barrie was negligent in failing to maintain the site of the slip and fall. Barrie’s defence was filed May 13, 2008. Examinations for Discovery took place August 5, 2010 and September 13, 2010. At the examination for discovery of the City representative, counsel advised that the proposed defendant had been contracted by the City to remove snow from the area where the plaintiff fell. The contractor had in turn subcontracted to the second proposed defendant. On November 25, 2010, Barrie’s counsel advised of the name of the subcontractor. Plaintiff’s counsel performed a corporate search on November 30, 2010 and brought a motion to add the proposed defendants December 14, 2010.
Justice DiTomaso dismissed the plaintiff’s motion. The court noted that the passing of the limitation period gives rise to a presumption of prejudice. There is a reverse onus and evidentiary burden on the plaintiff. In the circumstances, the plaintiff’s motion materials failed to disclose any evidence of pre-discovery diligence on the part of the plaintiff or his counsel to determine the identity of the proposed defendants. The motion materials failed to disclose any evidence of any reason why the plaintiff could not have taken any steps to discover the identity of the proposed defendants prior to the examination for discovery. Justice DiTomaso held that waiting 4 ½ years until the examination for discovery of a City representative to make inquiries about potential additional defendants did not amount to due diligent or reasonable efforts. The affidavit of the plaintiff’s legal assistant was totally deficient in providing evidence of due diligence or reasonable efforts made to ascertain the involvement of the proposed defendants or any other defendants. The plaintiff therefore had not met his onus and the motion was dismissed.
Justice DiTomaso’s decision is extremely useful for proposed defendants responding to a plaintiff’s motion to amend. There is a very helpful summary of the case law with respect to adding defendants and the due diligence requirement.
Thank you to Ted Key for bringing this case to our attention.
Rabu, 06 April 2011
Gross Negligence
The Court of Appeal for Ontario has upheld a decision which found that the City of Mississauga’s response to a winter storm event was reasonable, Billings v. Mississauga (City), 2011 ONCA 247, [2011] O.J. No. 1449 (C.A.).
The plaintiff, Douglas Billings, claimed injuries suffered in a slip and fall accident on a City sidewalk following a major snow and ice storm.
The sidewalk in question had not been cleared of snow and ice within 36 hours after the winter storm. The City’s snow removal policy required that snow and ice be removed from sidewalks within 36 hours and the City had failed to meet that target. Nevertheless, the trial judge found that the storm had been an extraordinary event. The trial judge carefully reviewed the City’s systems, personnel and policies for dealing with snow storms and concluded that the City’s response to the storm was "completely reasonable." The City’s response to the storm did not amount to “gross negligence”, which is the standard mandated by statute.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge’s conclusion.
This case should assist municipalities in defending claims of personal injury caused by snow or ice on a municipal sidewalk. It is interesting that the City was found to have acted reasonably even though it did not meet its objective of clearing snow and ice from sidewalks within 36 hours after a storm event.
The plaintiff, Douglas Billings, claimed injuries suffered in a slip and fall accident on a City sidewalk following a major snow and ice storm.
The sidewalk in question had not been cleared of snow and ice within 36 hours after the winter storm. The City’s snow removal policy required that snow and ice be removed from sidewalks within 36 hours and the City had failed to meet that target. Nevertheless, the trial judge found that the storm had been an extraordinary event. The trial judge carefully reviewed the City’s systems, personnel and policies for dealing with snow storms and concluded that the City’s response to the storm was "completely reasonable." The City’s response to the storm did not amount to “gross negligence”, which is the standard mandated by statute.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge’s conclusion.
This case should assist municipalities in defending claims of personal injury caused by snow or ice on a municipal sidewalk. It is interesting that the City was found to have acted reasonably even though it did not meet its objective of clearing snow and ice from sidewalks within 36 hours after a storm event.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)