The Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident. The matter proceeded to trial. Liability and damages were in dispute. Questions were presented to the Jury. Defence counsel took the position that the Jury should be asked to particularize the Defendant’s negligence, and to also particularize which of the Plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the crash.

The Appellant purchased a home from the Respondent. Due to a faulty design, the home leaked, and mould formed. The Appellant sued the Respondent for psychological and emotional injuries. Following a motion for summary judgment, the Appellant’s action was dismissed.

Div. Ct. Appeal from LAT re: AC and HK Limitation Period.

Causation evidence in a medical negligence action – the admissibility of a cardiologist’s evidence on the average wait time for a stress test once a non-urgent referral is received.

Court of Appeal confirms “car surfing” is within the ordinary and well known uses of a vehicle giving rise to accident benefits coverage.

This was a decision involving two motions brought by the defendants Durham Children’s Aid Society (“Durham CAS”) and Hawk Residential Care and Treatment Homes Inc. (“Hawk Homes”) pursuant to Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim as failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action