The case involved a passenger injured on a Hamilton Street Railway bus after a sudden stop
The Ontario Court of Appeal has overturned the dismissal of a personal injury lawsuit against the city of Hamilton in a case involving a passenger injured on a Hamilton Street Railway (HSR) bus.
The dispute in Passmore v. Hamilton (City), 2024 ONCA 825 stemmed from an incident in July 2020 when the appellant, a passenger on an HSR bus, alleged that the driver’s sudden braking caused her to fall and sustain injuries. She initiated legal action against the driver, HSR, and the city of Hamilton, claiming they were liable for her injuries.
During a pre-trial conference, the city argued for the first time that it had been improperly named as a defendant. The court directed the city to bring a motion to dismiss the claim. The motion judge subsequently granted summary judgment, removing the city as a defendant. He stated that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the city's liability, describing the motion as one aimed at determining whether the case would be heard by a judge or jury.
On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in granting partial summary judgment without addressing key legal principles. The court emphasized that partial summary judgment is only appropriate in rare cases, citing the framework established in Malik v. Attia. Under this framework, partial summary judgment must provide cost savings, expedite proceedings, and avoid inconsistent findings by multiple judges. The court found that none of these criteria were met.
The appeal court also noted that granting summary judgment did not create efficiencies, as the city’s motion came late in the litigation process, after the case was already set for trial. The issues raised in the motion could have been dealt with during the trial itself without additional expense or delay. Moreover, the appellant’s claims of joint liability against HSR and the city necessitate consideration of the same evidence and issues, making partial summary judgment inappropriate.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, reinstating the claim against the city and awarding costs to the appellant.
