An incident between two tenants resulted in injuries
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently denied a summary judgment motion from the London & Middlesex Housing Corporation (LMHC) in a case involving an altercation between tenants at the LMHC-owned housing complex.
The dispute in Horn v. Latondress, 2024 ONSC 1089, arose from a confrontation between Keith Horn and Brian Latondress at the housing complex located at 85 Walnut Street in London, Ontario.
Horn, a long-term resident, and Latondress, who, besides being a tenant, served as the Resident Contact—a role akin to a building superintendent—have had a contentious history, particularly regarding their pets. The dispute escalated when the two encountered each other at the complex’s entrance, leading to a physical confrontation that resulted in Horn sustaining injuries, including a fractured right femur.
In the aftermath, Horn pursued legal action against Latondress and LMHC, accusing Latondress of assault and LMHC of liability under the Occupiers Liability Act, the Residential Tenancies Act, and the principles of vicarious liability. Horn contended that Latondress's position and actions as an LMHC employee tied the corporation directly to the incident. Conversely, LMHC argued for its non-liability, asserting that Latondress acted in self-defence or due to Horn’s aggression, thus removing any basis for LMHC’s responsibility.
The court’s deliberation focused on whether LMHC’s connection to the actions of Latondress justified a trial. Central to this is the investigation into whether Latondress’s role and the circumstances of the altercation fell within the scope of his employment, potentially implicating LMHC through vicarious liability.
The court in dismissing the summary judgment motion highlighted the need for a trial to explore the nuances of the case fully. This includes examining the duties of a Resident Contact at LMHC, the nature of the altercation, and how closely Latondress’s actions were related to his employment responsibilities. The ruling pointed out the significance of Resident Contacts in the operational management of LMHC properties and their direct interactions with tenants, which could connect LMHC to the incident through the actions of its employees.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the summary judgment motion, ruling that a trial is required for a fair and just determination on the merits.
