Alfred Kwinter

The defendants moved to dismiss the proposed class proceeding for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The plaintiffs did not oppose the dismissal but requested a 60-90 day delay of the effective date to locate new representative plaintiffs for a fresh action.

The court held that s. 29.1 is a mandatory provision and the court lacks discretion to delay the effective date of the dismissal.

The motion to dismiss was granted.

Following a decision on motions relating to an insurance appraisal process, both parties sought costs.

The court found that while success was somewhat divided, the defendant was the more successful party overall.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $6,547.04 to the defendant in the cause.

The defendant insurer brought a motion to appoint an appraiser on behalf of the plaintiff insureds under s. 128 of the Insurance Act following a residential fire.

The plaintiffs brought a responding motion seeking declarations that the appraisal proceed without regard to policy limits and include damages caused by the insurer's contractors.

The parties agreed on the scope of the appraisal but disagreed on whether the insurer had waived policy limits.

The court appointed the plaintiffs' chosen appraiser, noting its limited jurisdiction under s. 128(5), and ordered the appraisal to proceed without regard to policy limits but without prejudice to any rights or defences under the policy.

The applicant sought a declaration that his homeowner's insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify him in an underlying action arising from an incident at a summer camp.

The underlying claim alleged that the applicant pulled the plaintiff's head back, kneed him, and punched him, pleading both negligence and assault and battery.

The insurer denied coverage based on an intentional acts exclusion.

The court dismissed the application, finding the duty to indemnify was premature and the duty to defend was not triggered because the negligence claim was entirely derivative of the intentional tort of battery, which fell squarely within the policy's exclusion clause.

The plaintiff appealed an order of a Master granting a defendant leave to withdraw an admission in a statement of defence that a taxi driver was an employee of the taxi company.

The court applied the three‑part test for withdrawal of admissions under rule 51.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring a triable issue, inadvertence, and absence of non‑compensable prejudice.

The court held the admission was inadvertent and that the withdrawal would not cause prejudice because the plaintiff could still pursue liability against the taxi company and explore the nature of the relationship through discovery.

The potential loss of access to higher insurance limits did not constitute legal prejudice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant law firms brought an application to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent had a history of initiating multiple proceedings against his former lawyers, including solicitor negligence claims and assessments of accounts, while failing to pay numerous costs awards.

The court found the respondent's conduct met the criteria for a vexatious litigant and ordered that he may not institute or continue any proceeding without leave of the court.