Adam Grant

The defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario (HMQ), brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statements of claim in two actions arising from a fire that destroyed a school.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM) was negligent in failing to ensure a proper fire watch was in place after the initial fire was extinguished, leading to a rekindling that caused extensive damage.

The court found that the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 does not impose a duty on the OFM to post a fire watch or suppress fires, as those duties belong to municipal fire departments.

The court struck the negligence and nuisance claims against HMQ but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their pleadings to properly allege a duty of care based on specific interactions or assumption of control, provided the alleged duty does not exceed the OFM's statutory powers.

The defendant general contractor brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss a subrogated claim for flood damages, arguing it was barred by a prior Settlement and Release Agreement executed with the plaintiff property owner.

The court found that while the plaintiff and its property manager were sufficiently intertwined to be bound by the agreement, the objective factual matrix demonstrated the agreement was intended only to resolve uninsured, out-of-pocket expenses between the corporations directly.

The agreement did not encompass or extinguish the subrogated claims advanced by the plaintiffs' insurer.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 13.1.02 to transfer an action from Toronto to North Bay, arguing there was no real connection to Toronto and that the property, parties, and witnesses were located in Kirkland Lake.

The defendant was self-represented and did not oppose the motion.

The court granted the transfer but directed the action to Haileybury, which was identified as the Superior Court closest to Kirkland Lake, to better facilitate the defendant's participation, rather than North Bay as requested by the plaintiff.

No costs were awarded as the motion was unopposed.

On appeal from a trial judgment involving an oil tank leak at a residential property.

The trial judge found Thompson Fuels negligent for failing to conduct required comprehensive inspections and water testing of fuel oil tanks, but found the Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) not liable.

The plaintiff was found 60% contributorily negligent and Thompson Fuels 40% liable.

The appellate court upheld the trial judgment with one adjustment regarding betterment related to a line of credit.

The court addressed complex issues including the enforceability of exclusion clauses in consumer contracts, the application of regulatory obligations to civil liability, Pierringer agreements, and the calculation of damages in environmental contamination cases.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a dismissed summary judgment motion brought by the defendant Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA).

The plaintiffs, having successfully resisted the motion, sought partial indemnity costs of $41,033.67.

The TSSA proposed an award of $10,000, arguing that many claimed costs and disbursements related to the action generally rather than specifically to the motion.

The court, applying principles from the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, found the plaintiffs' requested hourly rates and disbursements, including expert reports and scheduling attendances, to be reasonable.

The court emphasized that it should not second-guess successful counsel's time on a motion that could have terminated the action.

Ultimately, the court ordered the TSSA to pay the plaintiffs $40,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action against it following a severe escalator injury to a minor plaintiff.

The TSSA argued it owed no duty of care regarding inspection frequency, met the standard of care in its inspections, and its actions did not cause the injuries.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court emphasized that the necessary findings of fact could not be made without live witness evidence, and that the issues were not clearly severable from the broader case against other defendants, posing a risk of inconsistent findings if partial summary judgment were granted.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing her claims against Minto Group Inc. (her penthouse landlord) and Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP (her lawyers).

The appellant had been defrauded by a man she met online who misrepresented his age, wealth, and background.

She sought damages from various parties, alleging they failed to protect her from the fraudster.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding that the appellant's claims against both Minto and Faskens lacked merit.

Against Minto, the court found no genuine issue requiring trial on claims for intrusion upon seclusion, breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, or infliction of mental distress.

Against Faskens, the court found that the lawyer had no obligation to conduct background investigations on the appellant's fiancé absent explicit instructions, and that the scope of the retainer did not include such duties.

A plumber used an open flame torch to repair a leaking pipe in the basement of a heritage mansion.

Shortly after the repair was completed, a massive fire broke out, destroying the house.

The property owner and the condominium corporation's insurers brought a subrogated negligence claim against the plumbing company.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove causation, as there was no evidence the downward-directed flame ignited combustibles in the adjacent joist space.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to establish a breach of the standard of care because they did not call expert evidence on the standard expected of a reasonably prudent plumber performing soldering work.

The plaintiff was defrauded by her spouse, who she met online.

She sued her former landlord (Minto) and her former law firm (Faskens), alleging they had a duty to protect her by warning her of her spouse's fraudulent background.

Minto had conducted a credit check on the plaintiff without her explicit consent when her spouse applied for a lease.

Faskens had been retained for estate planning prior to the marriage.

Both defendants brought motions for summary judgment.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motions and dismissed the claims against both defendants, finding that neither the landlord nor the law firm owed a duty to investigate the spouse or protect the plaintiff from his fraud.

The plaintiff's residential oil tank leaked, causing a significant environmental spill into Sturgeon Lake.

The plaintiff sued the fuel distributor (Thompson Fuels), the regulatory authority (TSSA), and the tank manufacturer (Granby) for negligence.

The court found Thompson Fuels 40% liable for failing to conduct a mandatory comprehensive inspection before delivering fuel.

The plaintiff was found 60% contributorily negligent for improper installation, failing to maintain the tank, introducing water into the tank, and delaying reporting the leak.

Claims against the TSSA and Granby were dismissed.

The court also assessed the reasonableness of the extensive remediation costs and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for statutory contribution under the Environmental Protection Act.

The plaintiffs' home was flooded twice due to a cast iron water main breaking in front of their driveway.

They sued the City of Vaughan for negligence and nuisance.

The City argued its failure to replace the water main was a policy decision exempt from liability under the Municipal Act.

The court found the City's inaction was an operational decision, as it failed to follow its own internal barometer for replacing water mains with a history of breaks.

The City was found liable for negligence, and the plaintiffs were awarded agreed-upon damages of $480,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend his Statement of Claim to add a claim for contribution and indemnity under the Environmental Protection Act, following an Environmental Review Tribunal decision reducing a municipal cleanup order against him.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the proposed amendments were statute-barred and untenable.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that the legal issues regarding limitation periods and statutory interpretation were novel and not plainly and obviously untenable, and that the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.

A commercial tenant alleged that it was induced to enter into a lease by fraudulent misrepresentations about the condition of the landlord’s plumbing system and later suffered business losses after repeated sewer back‑ups.

The landlord moved under Rule 21 to strike the amended statement of claim based on contractual provisions including a covenant requiring the tenant to insure against losses such as flooding and sewer backup, and a release executed after the first incident.

The court held that the covenant to insure barred the tenant’s claims for breach of contract, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation because the tenant had assumed the risk of those losses through insurance.

However, it was not plain and obvious that the covenant or the release barred a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation inducing the lease, particularly given allegations of economic duress surrounding the release.

The tenant was granted leave to amend its pleading to advance only the fraudulent misrepresentation claim.

In a product liability action arising from a fire allegedly caused by a defective block heater, multiple corporate defendants asserted cross‑claims.

One defendant moved for an order permitting the examination for discovery of a specific employee of another corporate defendant who allegedly made representations regarding the suitability of a component incorporated into the heater.

The court considered Rules 31.03, 31.04, 31.05, and 31.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the proportionality principles articulated in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The court held that examination of the employee was appropriate and would expedite the conduct of the action without undue expense or inconvenience.

The court directed the order and scope of examinations and allowed the motion, with costs awarded to the moving defendant.

A third party sought summary judgment dismissing a negligence claim arising from a fuel oil tank leak that contaminated neighbouring properties.

The moving party argued that its role in promulgating industry standards constituted a policy decision for which it was immune from civil liability.

The court held it was not plain and obvious that no duty of care could exist, particularly regarding allegations of inadequate standards, failure to warn of known hazards, negligent investigation, and proximity between the regulator and affected parties.

Given the incomplete evidentiary record and the novelty of the duty-of-care issue, the court declined to grant summary judgment.

The matter was left open for reconsideration after discovery and a fuller factual record.