Summary Judgment for Failure to Give Notice under s.44(10) – “Substantial Inconsistencies in the Evidence” noted by the Court

Written on February 21, 2016.

On February 18, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision on a motion for Summary Judgment, in Bourassa v. Temiskaming Shores (City). In the reasons for decision, the Court rejected several arguments put forth by counsel for the Plaintiff, Lorenzo Girones, Q.C., of Girones Lawyers, and granted the City’s motion to dismiss the action. The City was represented by Charles Painter of PM Law. Legal arguments made on behalf of the Plaintiff that the notice provision under s.44(10) of the Municipal Act, 2001,  was of no force and effect, and a suggested “literal approach” to interpreting the  notice section, were not accepted. Another of the arguments noted by the Court, was that the firm was initially retained only with respect to accident benefits. In making his decision on the motion, the Honourable Justice Wilcox stated: “…There were also substantial inconsistencies in the evidence as to what Girones Lawyers were doing, and why. Therefore I find on a balance of probabilities that Girones Lawyers were contemplating bringing the action within days or weeks of being contacted on behalf of the Plaintiff. Indeed it would be surprising if it were otherwise, given that the firm is well known for its personal injury work.” The full text of the Court’s decision can be read here: Bourassa v Temiskaming Shores 2016 ONSC 1211