Anthony Douglas Cole

The plaintiffs appealed a Master's order allowing certain paragraphs in the defendants' Statement of Defence.

The plaintiffs argued the paragraphs improperly pleaded evidence rather than material facts, contrary to Rule 25.06.

The court upheld the Master's decision regarding paragraphs quoting emails and detailing facts for a fair comment defence.

However, the court struck a paragraph that quoted extensively from expert reports, finding it improperly pleaded evidence, and granted leave to amend.

The defendant fuel oil distributor was sued after a fuel oil tank it sold leaked, causing property damage.

The defendant brought a third-party action against its insurers seeking a declaration of a duty to defend.

One insurer argued the claim was barred by a one-year contractual limitation period incorporated from statutory fire conditions.

The court held that the fire statutory conditions could not be applied to third-party liability coverage without anomalous consequences, meaning the general two-year statutory limitation period applied and the claim was not barred.

The court found the first insurer had a duty to defend as there was a mere possibility the damage occurred during its policy period.

However, the court dismissed the claims against the other insurers, finding that pollution exclusions and specific policy definitions precluded coverage.

The appellant purchased a second mortgage as an investment, but the mortgagor fraudulently misrepresented the balance of the first mortgage.

After the property was sold under power of sale, leaving no funds for the appellant, she sued the mortgage broker for negligence and breach of contract, and the title insurer for coverage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment dismissing the action.

The court found the title insurance policy did not cover the loss, and the claim against the broker was statute-barred because it was discovered more than two years before the action was commenced.

The court clarified that the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 applied, rather than the ten-year period under the Real Property Limitations Act, because the claim was based in negligence and contract rather than an interest in land.

Following the granting of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action against both defendants, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs relying on Rule 49 settlement offers and the complexity of the litigation.

The court reviewed the governing principles under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality, the result obtained, the conduct of the parties, and the offers to settle.

Although the defendants had made settlement offers and were fully successful, the court found no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiff warranting substantial indemnity costs.

Exercising its discretion, the court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff at $30,000 to one defendant and $18,000 to the other.

An insurer sought declarations that coverage was unavailable under a professional liability claims-made-and-reported insurance policy issued to a home inspector.

The insured had answered “no” on policy renewal applications when asked whether he was aware of any situation or circumstance that might result in a claim, despite knowing that a worker had died after contacting an exposed energized wire in a property he had inspected and that the Ministry of Labour had investigated and conducted an inquest.

The court held that the reporting obligation is assessed using an objective test and that the investigation and inquest constituted circumstances that reasonably called for disclosure.

Because the policy application contained an exclusion for claims arising from undisclosed circumstances, coverage never attached.

Relief from forfeiture was unavailable because the exclusion meant the claim fell outside the policy’s coverage entirely.

The appellant, an Ontario mining company, sued American engineering consultants for negligent misrepresentation regarding studies for a Costa Rican gold mine.

The defendants successfully moved to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the tort of negligent misrepresentation was committed in Ontario, as the studies were received and relied upon at the appellant's Toronto head office.

This established a presumptive real and substantial connection that the defendants failed to rebut.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to determine forum non conveniens.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and commenced an action against the driver, believing him to be the owner based on a police report and an insurer's pleading.

Counsel later received a Crown brief containing a licence plate search that identified the respondents as the true owners, but a law clerk missed this information.

The respondents were sued more than two years after the accident, and a motion judge dismissed the claim as statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that counsel acted with reasonable diligence in relying on the initial information until the contrary information actually came to their attention.

An employee of the appellant's subsidiary was injured at work and settled a claim for $1,350,000.

The appellant sued its excess insurer for the $350,000 amount above its primary coverage.

The appellant argued the umbrella policy provided 'claims made' coverage, while the insurer argued an endorsement limited it to an 'occurrence' basis.

The trial judge found the endorsement superseded the general policy provisions and required an occurrence during the policy period.

The Court of Appeal upheld this interpretation, finding the endorsement operated as a coverage trigger rather than an exclusion, and dismissed the appeal.

The self-represented appellant appealed four Certificates of Assessment of Costs issued by an assessment officer following the dismissal of his earlier appeal.

The appellant raised numerous objections, including allegations that the respondents' claims for costs were fraudulent, that one corporate respondent did not exist, and that the assessment officer demonstrated bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the assessment officer's duty was to assess costs in accordance with the court's order, not to look behind it or review the underlying basis of the claims.

The court found no foundation for the appellant's allegations of fraud or bias.