Author: admin

In Tiller v. St. Andrew’s College the Plaintiff’s brought a motion compelling the Defendant produce a statement provided by the Defendant companies Chief Engineer and Director of Property Facilities. In this case, the Plaintiff was injured when a rod fell from the ceiling and hit the Plaintiff on the head.

The Chief Engineer was examined at Discovery. Yet the Defendants maintained the statement provided by the Chief Engineer would not be produced nor a summary of its contents since it was deemed privileged.

The Plaintiff’s motion was not seeking production of the actual document. Yet a summary. The Plaintiff’s request was granted.

The motions Judge stated:

The defendant in this case has put in issue safety of the premises, assumption of risk, causation, contributory negligence by the plaintiff, and damages. The plaintiff is entitled to know all of the facts known to the defendant relating to the condition of the premises at the material time, the role of the plaintiff, causation, and whether or not, and to what extent, she suffered damage. The plaintiffs are also entitled to know the names of any persons with relevant knowledge and their addresses. To the extent that there are relevant facts or witness particulars in the statement of the defendant’s Chief Engineer and Director of Property and Facilities at the relevant time relating to these issues, they are discoverable. The statement itself is neither sought nor is it producible, assuming that it is subject to litigation privilege as this motion assumes.

This UK public service announcement is causing some stir due to the graphic nature of the video. The ad is to highlight the concern regarding texting while driving.

No surprises here. The victims of this summer’s Air France tragedy are looking to commence legal proceedings against the airliner. At this time little is known.  One of the suspected causes might be faulty speed sensors. Air France says that it has replaced the faulty sensors.

On August 2, 2005 an Air France jet failed to land on the runway in Toronto, Ontario. Instead, it landed in a ravine. All the passengers were safe but Air France faced class action proceedings on behalf of the passengers.

In June 2008 Air France started a lawsuit against the GTTA (Greater Toronto Airports Authority) for a faulty runway.

KFC has released a “sandwich” that consists of two kinds of bacon, two kinds of cheese and sauce. However, here’s the interesting the part instead of bread KFC will be using two pieces of fried chicken.  How’s that for a healthy option.

Currently, the sandwich is only being marketed in specific areas in the United States.

It's estimated the sandwich has 1228 calories.

On July 2, 2009 a Milton, Ontario court awarded the Plaintiff, $3.5 million in damages and interest totalling $4 million dollars for chronic pain and fibromyalgia syndrome.

The incident happened when the Plaintiff was visiting her son at the Oakville hospital. A nurse told her she could spend the night on a bed in the room to be close to her son.

The bed collapsed and initially caused a fractured tailbone that went on to heal. However, the Plaintiff claimed to suffer from fibromyalgia that caused chronic pain.

Here is the case.

This teacher down in the United States got a side order of live baby scorpian with his order of fries and sandwich at McDonald's.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/video/you-want-fries-with-that-scorpion/article1261544/

Here is an interesting article by a tort professor that describes how tort liability for a personal injury can be viewed as social insurance.

Click here for article.

A very interesting dilemma regarding Judges made the front page of The Toronto Star. Legally Judges are to retire after the age of 75. However, Ontario no longer has the mandatory retirement requirement. As a result, there are Judges who are over the age of 75. Having a Judge who is 75 and older presiding over complicated or simple matters can be worrisome for council.

It has been requested that some of the decisions by these over 75 Justices be reviewed. This is would be a very complicated scenario.

Obviously, there is a policy reason for why Judges should retire after the age of 75. However, it seems like age discrimination. Remember after all John McCain was in his seventies when he ran for President just last year.

In Alberta a successful court challenge was made to the general damages cap for minor damages being $4000. However, this summer the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the decision and found that the cap on damages did not violate the constitutional rights of injured car victims in Alberta.

The decision is Morrow v. Zhang, [2009] ABCA 215

The courts rationale was based on the fact that while injured parties lost the right to compensation they were given access to an enhanced accident benefits system.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal is expected to also rule on the issue of a $2,500 cap for damages in the case of Hartling et al v. Nova Scotia It’s anticipated that the decision will be out sometime in Christmas.

A three Judge panel decided on August 13, 2009 that the lawsuit against Snapple would proceed. The lawsuit was commenced by the Plaintiff alleging the companies marketing and advertising strategies were false. Moreover that Snapple violated consumer-fraud laws by claiming, “all natural ingredients”. When in fact it really used artificial sweetners?

Initially the suit was thrown out due to the US FDA’s food and drug Regulations over labeling. The lower court stated that the company was immune from the lawsuit.

However, early this month an appeals court allowed the suit. Will Snapple also be sued for its claim that its, “made from the best stuff on earth” as well?