The Madhottra vs. Adwo matter disclosed an admission of responsibility and blameworthy conduct on behalf of the Plaintiff when she walked into the roadway at a prohibited non-functioning cross-walk. Her Statement of Claim therefore disclosed an admission in the first two paragraphs so that there is no cause of action requiring a defence as the cross walks indicate they are not to be used when not functioning. As such, the Ontario Hydro and the City of Toronto have no action to defend with an order sought for a dismissal onbtje claim as other measures were taken in the use of legislation to govern pedestrian behaviour to ensure that pedestrians understand they are not to cross at non-functioning cross walks or traffic lights. It is an offence and when it is committed, the pedestrian is not a victim in Tort if the pedestrian suffered injury due to their illegal, careless navigation of the cross walks. Counsel for Mr. Adwo drafted pleadings and confirmed in correspondence that the pleadings amount to an admission. He also prepared to bring a motion and sought dates from Other counsel who did not respond contrary to the rules of professional conduct. Click here.

 The Madhottra vs. Adwo matter  disclosed an admission of responsibility and blameworthy conduct on behalf of the Plaintiff when she walked into the roadway at a prohibited  non-functioning cross-walk.
  Her Statement of Claim therefore disclosed an admission in the first two paragraphs so that there is  no cause of action requiring a defence as  the cross walks indicate they are not to be used when not functioning. As such, the Ontario Hydro and the City of Toronto have no action to defend with an order sought for a dismissal onbtje claim as  other measures were taken in the use of legislation to govern pedestrian behaviour to ensure that pedestrians understand they are not to cross at non-functioning cross walks or traffic lights. It is an offence and when it is committed, the pedestrian is not a victim in Tort if the  pedestrian suffered injury due to their illegal, careless navigation of the cross walks.     Counsel for Mr. Adwo drafted pleadings and confirmed in correspondence that the pleadings amount to an admission. He also prepared to bring a motion and sought dates from Other counsel who did not respond contrary to the rules of professional conduct.  

-------

     The Court of Appeal in Marchand (Litigation guardian of) v. Public General Hospital Society ofChatham (2000), 2000 CanLII 16946 (ON CA), 51 O.R. (3d) 97 (C.A.), at para. 77, described how aformal admission may be made:

(1) a statement in pleadings;

(2) failure to respond to pleadings;

(3) by oral statement by counsel at trial;

(4) by agreement of counsel/ letter exchanged by counsel before trial; or

(5) in response a request to admit.

     Marchand adopts a broad and purposive interpretation to Rule 51.05. In effect, a party makes an admission by engaging in conduct that unequivocally communicates to the other party that a fact is not in dispute. Applying the Marchand criteria, a statement made under oath is an admission.