Angela Papalia

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for $2.6 million in building replacement costs and $250,000 in business interruption losses after two windstorms damaged their mushroom farm buildings.

The defendant insurer argued that some damage pre-existed the storms and was excluded from coverage, relying on conflicting expert reports.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that the conflicting expert evidence regarding the cause and extent of the damage created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court also held that the statutory appraisal process was not appropriate for resolving disputes involving policy interpretation and causation.

The appellant, a third mortgagee, appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action for damages for an alleged improvident sale and for an accounting under s. 27 of the Mortgages Act.

The appellant argued the motion judge applied the wrong test, the sale was improvident, and the second mortgagee was not entitled to add the first mortgage payout to its claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the wrong test was applied, the respondent took reasonable precautions to obtain the true market value of the property.

The court also held the respondent was entitled to the payout amount under the doctrine of equitable subrogation.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order dismissing their motion to add four defendants to an action claiming damages from improper foreclosure orders.

The motion judge found the claims against the proposed defendants were statute-barred under the two-year limitation period, as the appellants knew or ought to have known of their involvement well before the limitation period expired.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, rejecting arguments that a ten-year limitation period applied or that the doctrine of special circumstances permitted adding the parties.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant lender brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim by a third mortgagee arising from a power of sale of residential property.

The plaintiff alleged the sale was improvident and challenged the defendant’s ability to add amounts paid to discharge a prior mortgage to its own mortgage debt.

The court held the sale price fell within the range of professional appraisals and did not demonstrate bad faith or fraud.

The court further held that the defendant was contractually and equitably entitled to add the payout of the prior mortgage to its own mortgage and recover that amount in priority to the plaintiff.

Finding the matter suitable for determination on a documentary record, the court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action.

The appellants were successful on appeal, significantly increasing their recovery from the trial judgment.

The respondent sought costs based on a pre-litigation offer that exceeded the appeal award but was only open for five days.

The court noted the respondent made no Rule 49 offer, while the appellants made three, though for amounts greater than their ultimate recovery.

Given the recovery and the necessity of the appeal, the court awarded the appellants $15,000 inclusive of costs.

The plaintiffs appealed a trial judgment regarding a contract for the construction of a home that was destroyed by fire before completion.

The trial judge found the plaintiffs had terminated the contract and awarded the defendant $100,000 on its counterclaim for lost profits, while awarding the plaintiffs a small net judgment from insurance proceeds.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding that the plaintiffs terminated the contract but found the trial judge erred in calculating the insurance trust funds and the counterclaim damages.

The appeal was allowed in part, reducing the counterclaim to $20,000 and varying the net judgment in favour of the plaintiffs to $60,765.