Slip and Fall Action Dismissed on Summary Judgment Motion

In Occupier's Liability cases, it is important to remember that occupiers are not insurers.

In Nandlal v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2014 ONSC 4760 (S.C.J.), the plaintiff alleged she fell on debris on the stairs in a subway station.  At her examination for discovery she testified she slipped on floor tiles.  She could not describe what she fell on and there were no witnesses.  A janitor was assigned to the station and followed a detailed schedule of regular maintenance and cleaning.

Justice Perell held that a plaintiff must pinpoint some act or omission on the part of the occupier that caused the plaintiff's injury.  The Occupier's Liability Act does not impose strict liability and the presence of a hazard does not lead inevitably to the conclusion that the occupier has breached its duty.  The occupier does not have to remove every possible danger; the standard of care is one of reasonableness, not perfection. 

Justice Perell allowed the TTC's summary judgment motion and dismissed the claim.  The plaintiff could not prove a hazard existed, and the evidence was that TTC took steps to make its premises as safe as in all the circumstances was reasonable.  He used a common sense approach:

[29]           It is important for a court to use common sense when applying the statute: (Canada) Attorney General v. Ranger, supra, at para. 34. Falls at bus terminals, airports, seaports, train stations, subway stations, occur without someone being responsible or with the responsibility resting with someone other than the occupier of the property. Falls occur on stairs found everywhere without anybody being responsible for what is just an accident. It is not reasonable or even practicable to impose an obligation on the TTC to be in a position to continuously and immediately cleanup after its patrons who litter the TTC premises including its staircases.  

Wisconsin's Best Lawyers in America©

I am extremely proud to announce that both Jeff Zirgibel and I were recently selected by our peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2015 in the field of Personal Injury Litigation - Plaintiffs.  Inclusion in Best Lawyers© is highly selective and "based on an exhaustive and rigorous peer-reviewed survey."

Wisconsin Personal Injury Lawyers

The Test for Catastrophic Impairment

A recent decision by the Divisional Court in Ontario provides a plaintiff-friendly interpretation of the test for catastrophic impairment under the SABS.

In Security National Insurance Co. v Hodges, 2014 ONSC 3627 (Div. Ct.), GCS scored administered within 30 minutes of the accident were 11.  He underwent surgery the day after the accident and scores fell to 3 while he was intubated, but rose to 10 once the trachea was removed. Roughly three days following the accident – and while still under the influence of medication – several GCS tests were administered and resulted in scores of 9.  MRI and CT scans done at the time suggested that, while Mr. Hodges had suffered a brain injury from the accident, the extent of the injury was quite limited. GCS tests administered over the following days showed continuing improvement and the final GCS test indicated no impairment in consciousness.

The insurer denied the plaintiff's application for catastrophic impairment.  The arbitrator found that the plaintiff met the test for catastrophic impairment and this finding was affirmed under appeal to FSCO.  The insurer appealed to the Divisional Court. 

In upholding the FSCO decision, the Divisional Court stated that what constitutes a reasonable period of time to conduct the GCS test should be determined on a case-by-case basis. It found that, in this case, the test was conducted within a reasonable period of time, given that the injured individual was still experiencing fluctuating levels of consciousness at the time of the test. The court rejected the argument that the GCS score had to have “prognostic value,” saying that this would turn the legal test for catastrophic impairment into a medical test. The court also rejected the argument that the statute required that the brain injury be the sole cause of the score of 9 or less, saying: “It is sufficient that the person claiming catastrophic impairment had any brain injury causing anyimpairment….”

It will be interesting to see if Hodges results in a greater number of applications for a CAT designation.  Of course, the claimant still needs to show entitlement to benefits even if successful.

Court Grants Summary Judgment Against Party Bringing Motion

Courts seem to be embracing the "culture shift" advocated by the Supreme Court in Hryniak.

In King Lofts Toronto I Ltd. v. Emmons, 2014 ONCA 215 (C.A.), the plaintiff sued for solicitor's negligence in connection with a commercial real estate transaction.  The defendants brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the claim on the basis of an expired limitation period.  The motions judge dismissed the motion, but went a step further, granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the basis that the defendants had acted negligently.

The defendants appealed and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.  It held that the evidence was clear that there was a duty to warn and the solicitor failed to do so.  The Court of Appeal held that "the principles of proportionality and sensible management of the court process support the judge's ruling". 

King Lofts shows a danger to bringing a summary judgment motion under the new Hryniak test.  Is this an unintended consequence of the new regime or in line with a goal of reducing the number of cases that need a full blown trial?

Plaintiff Ordered to Attend Second IME

A recent decision highlights the importance of wording correspondence when disputes arise over IMEs.

In Caesar v. Griaznov, 2014 ONSC 4329 (S.C.J.), the plaintiff alleged both physical and psychological injuries.  Defence counsel arranged IMEs with a psychiatrist and a physiatrist.  Plaintiff's counsel advised the plaintiff would attend only one IME of the defendant's choosing.  A clerk in defence counsel's office sent a letter stating the defendant "chose" the psychiatrist.  She later followed up in an email that read as though the clerk assumed the physiatry IME would proceed as well.

Master Muir ordered the plaintiff to attend the second examination.  Since the plaintiff was claiming two distinct types of injury (physical and psychological), fairness dictated the plaintiff be compelled to attend.  There would be no overlap between the two examinations.  There was little unfairness to the plaintiff since there was no trial date pending and a mediation date was several months away.  In contrast, there was the risk of significant unfairness to the defendant who would be required to defend a central element of the plaintiff's claim without the benefit of a current expert assessment.

Master Muir denied the successful defendant costs given the clerk's letter which suggested the defendant had "chosen" only one examination.  The decision on costs seems odd given that Master Muir was satisfied the defendant always intended to preserve her right to a second examination.  Counsel should be alert to the wording used in correspondence relating to disputed IMEs.

Plaintiff Failed to Meet Threshold

The Court of Appeal recently affirmed a trial judge's decision to dismiss an action based on the failure to meet threshold. 

In Jennings v. Latendresse, 2014 ONCA 517 (C.A.), the plaintiff was in a motor vehicle accident in 2005.  The defendant admitted liability.  While the jury was deliberating the judge heard a threshold motion, and ultimately dismissed the action after the jury rendered a verdict.  The jury held that the plaintiff had recovered from her injuries and did not award any amount for general damages or past loss of income, although they valued a loss of competitive advantage at $58,000.

The plaintiff submitted that her diagnosis of chronic pain, by definition, must indicate the injuries were permanent.  The Court of Appeal disagreed.  There was evidence that the plaintiff was improving and continued to improve, her functional abilities showed no impairment, she had returned to her pre-accident employment, her medical examination showed full range of motion, expert evidence stated recurring pain was not caused by the original injury, and pre-accident physical and psychological stressors contributed to the chronic pain but had nothing to do with the injury.  The evidence supported the trial judge's decision the plaintiff did not meet threshold.

One of the arguments made by the plaintiff on appeal was that the jury verdict was inconsistent when it found the plaintiff had recovered from her injuries but awarded an amount for loss of competitive advantage.  The Court of Appeal held that there was nothing inconsistent in finding a loss of competitive advantage but that it was not caused by the accident.

Jennings shows the importance of marshalling the evidence at trial as well as conducting a causation analysis, especially in chronic pain cases.

Limitation to Add Defendants Expired

Issues relating to discoverability can be decided on a motion to amend a claim.

In Garic v. Mack Trucks Canada 2014 ONSC 3103 (S.C.J.), the plaintiff was injured in 2006 while operating a dump truck owned by her husband.  One of the axles gave way, causing her to lose control and roll into a ditch.  Her husband was initially named as an FLA claimant.

In 2012, the plaintiff brought a motion seeking to add her (now former) husband and his company as defendants for failing to maintain the vehicle.  She argued the claim was not discoverable until the named defendants gave evidence on discovery that the owner had not followed proper maintenance procedures. 

The Court dismissed the motion to add defendants, holding that:

[19]           The difficulty with the plaintiff's position is that the case law has established that to discover a claim the plaintiff must only have sufficient facts upon which to support an allegation that there is a cause of action, and it is not necessary for the plaintiff to have discovered complete evidentiary support to make the claim winnable (see Wilkinson v Braithwaite [2011] O.J. No. 1714 (S.C.J.) at para. 32).

The Statement of Claim alleged the named defendants were responsible for "service, inspection and maintenance" of the truck, which was expressly denied in the Statement of Defence.  The plaintiff knew her husband was responsible for maintenance of the truck since the business commenced.  Justice Broad held that the essential facts were either actually known to the plaintiff or at least obtainable with due diligence more than two years since the motion was brought.