2 total
Partial summary judgment granted against a contractor for failing to provide additional insured coverage.
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.
A litigant may obtain a court order compelling disclosure of relevant information without exhausting MFIPPA appeals.
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.
