Applicants successful in demonstrating economic loss for care provider who was a student at the time of the MVA and subsequently had to accept a lower paying position than anticipated due to the requirement for flexible time and proximity to provide AC services.

The Court of Appeal held that the term “owner” in the Dog Owners’ Liability Act is more expansive than the colloquial meaning and refers to a person who has some measure of control and physical possession of the dog immediately prior to the injury. The Court furthered clarified the application of negligence to cases of injury by animals, holding that there must be “special circumstances” in which the owner could reasonably foresee that a specific animal was dangerous in specific circumstances.

Despite serving the co-defendant to the point of intoxication and breaching their obligations under the Liquor License Act, the Court found no liability on the part of the bar for damages sustained by the Plaintiff in an assault and battery.

Coverage decision about “use or operation of an automobile”

Court is not required to determine whether a plaintiff’s injuries meet threshold for non-pecuniary general damages and health care costs under s. 267.5(15) of the Insurance Act if the amount awarded for pain and suffering is zero.