Galka v. Stankiewicz
The Court dismissed the appeal because the trial judge's finding that the risk was not reasonably foreseeable was supported by evidence and should not be displaced on appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2011 ONCA 428
- Parties
- Appellant: Wieslaw Galka; Respondent: Patryk Stankiewicz and The City of Toronto
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 2 June 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Foreseeability, Duty of Care, Appeal Review
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Wieslaw Galka
Appellant
Patryk Stankiewicz and The City of Toronto
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable
- 2 Whether the trial judge's factual findings were supported by evidence and should be disturbed on appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The Court dismissed the appeal because the trial judge's finding that the risk was not reasonably foreseeable was supported by evidence and should not be displaced on appeal.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Costs to the City of $21,649 if requested.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Galka v. Stankiewicz Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2011-06-02 Neutral citation 2011 ONCA 428 Docket numbers C52239 Judges Laskin, John Ivan; Goudge, Stephen Thomas; Gillese, Eileen E. Subject Civil Decision Content CITATION: Galka v. Stankiewicz, 2011 ONCA 428 DATE: 20110602 DOCKET: C52239 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Laskin, Goudge and Gillese JJ.A. BETWEEN Wieslaw Galka Appellant and Patryk Stankiewicz and The City of Toronto Respondents J. Gardners Hodder, and Howard Blitstein, for the appellant E. Ayers and R. Squires, for the respondents Heard: June 2, 2011 On appeal from the judgment of Justice D.F. Baltman of the Superior Court of Justice dated May 14, 2010. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] We agree with the trial judge’s finding that this was not a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm. There was evidence to support this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Costs to the City of $21,649, if requested. The court hopes that the costs will not be requested.