Alexander D. Pettingill

The appellants, small and mid-size businesses, appealed a class action decision regarding business interruption insurance claims stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

They sought coverage for revenue losses, arguing that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 or civil authority orders constituted "physical loss or damage" to their property under their insurance policies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that neither the virus's presence nor the civil authority orders met the "physical loss or damage" criteria for business interruption coverage.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

This appeal addressed the application of Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act) to a negligence claim.

Subway sued Trent University for negligence and defamation after Trent's testing of Subway's chicken products was featured on a CBC "Marketplace" broadcast.

The motion judge dismissed Trent's anti-SLAPP motion, finding the negligence claim did not arise from an expression.

The Court of Appeal allowed Trent's appeal, holding that the negligence claim did arise from an expression related to a matter of public interest.

Furthermore, the Court found that Subway's negligence claim lacked substantial merit because no duty of care existed between Trent and Subway, as there was no undertaking of responsibility by Trent in favour of Subway, nor any reliance by Subway on Trent's services or statements.

The motion judge's order was set aside, and Subway's negligence claim was dismissed.

The University of Manitoba brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim, arguing it was statute-barred and concerned an academic dispute over his 2007 medical school application.

The plaintiff contended his claim was based on the University's attempts to suppress his publications through legal threats, infringing his Charter rights to freedom of expression.

The court found the "pith and substance" of the claim related to the academic decision-making process, which was statute-barred and not within the court's jurisdiction.

The court also determined that the "cease and desist" letter sent to the plaintiff did not constitute a violation of his Charter rights or a sustainable cause of action.

The motion to strike was granted, and costs were awarded to the University.