Arthur James Rozumek

Wal-Mart Canada Corporation moved for summary judgment on its crossclaim against United Services Group, alleging breach of a facilities maintenance agreement.

Wal-Mart claimed United failed to name it as an additional insured on a liability policy, seeking defence costs and indemnification after the plaintiff slipped and fell at the premises.

The court granted partial summary judgment, finding that United breached the agreement by failing to name Wal-Mart as an additional insured, which would have triggered a duty to defend.

However, the court determined that the issue of United's duty to indemnify Wal-Mart and the quantification of damages required a trial, as it was premature to conclude whether the plaintiff's fall directly arose from United's specific contractual cleaning obligations.

This motion addressed the conflict between the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) and the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the disclosure of personal information in litigation.

The plaintiff sought to compel the Town of Oakville to disclose the last known addresses of former municipal employees relevant to the case, which the Town refused, citing MFIPPA.

The court ruled that a litigant may obtain a court order for relevant disclosure without first fully exhausting the MFIPPA statutory appeal process, as the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly the deemed undertaking rule, provide sufficient privacy safeguards.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment but failed to perfect the appeal for over a year.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for delay.

The appellant subsequently filed a consumer proposal and argued that the appeal and motion were stayed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Divisional Court held that the stay of proceedings under s. 69.2(1) of the BIA does not apply to an appeal initiated by the debtor.

Applying the Paulsson factors, the court dismissed the appeal for delay, noting the excessive delay, prejudice to the respondents, and the lack of merit in the appellant's arguments regarding language rights and the trial judge's assessment of evidence.

The applicant sought interim accident benefits, including non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and medical/assessment benefits, following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had significant pre-existing physical and psychological conditions that were not proven to be exacerbated by the accident.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate a compelling need or urgency for interim benefits, as he continued to receive medical treatment and had some assistance for his day-to-day needs.

The motion for interim benefits was dismissed.