Aryan Ziaie

The plaintiffs, representing a class of small to medium-sized businesses, sought coverage under their business interruption insurance policies for losses sustained due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related civil authority orders.

The court held a common issues trial to determine whether the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus or government lockdown orders could cause 'physical loss or damage to property' within the meaning of the policies.

The court concluded that the virus does not physically alter or damage inanimate surfaces, and that the loss of use of the premises due to government orders does not constitute physical loss or damage.

Consequently, the court answered the certified common issues in the negative, finding no coverage under the business interruption provisions.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against seven discount brokers, alleging that their receipt of mutual fund trailing commissions prior to the 2022 prohibition was illegal.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the 'some evidence' requirement to show that the practice contravened applicable Canadian securities law.

The evidence filed by the plaintiffs themselves demonstrated that the practice, while controversial, was not illegal before the regulatory amendments took effect.

The motion for certification was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent for an order granting leave to discontinue the proposed class action without costs and without notice to putative class members.

The certification motion had previously been dismissed and the action continued as an individual action.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to former proposed class members who had sufficient opportunity to bring their own claims, which were being case-managed together.

The plaintiffs sought costs of $354,759.57 following a certification motion in a class action regarding allegedly defective water pumps in Ford vehicles.

The defendants argued that each party should bear their own costs due to the plaintiffs' limited success, as only one of fifteen causes of action was certified and the class size was significantly reduced.

The defendants also sought costs for their successful preliminary motion to strike evidence.

The court awarded the defendants $16,612.70 for the preliminary motion.

For the certification motion, the court found that a reduction in the plaintiffs' costs was justified to discourage overinclusive class membership, awarding the plaintiffs $197,750 in fees payable forthwith and $97,537.56 in disbursements payable in the cause.

The defendants in two related class actions brought motions to compel the representative plaintiffs to answer questions refused during examinations for discovery.

The refused questions related to the plaintiffs' individual medical and employment histories, reasons for detention, and other individual experiences.

The court dismissed the defendants' motions, holding that discovery prior to a common issues trial is limited to the common issues.

The court found that the individual damages questions were not relevant to the common issues of systemic negligence or aggregate damages, which must be determined without reference to the circumstances of individual class members.

In a proposed class action regarding allegedly defective water pumps in Ford vehicles, the defendants brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of an affidavit filed by the plaintiffs' proposed class counsel.

The affidavit attached unverified online complaints from a U.S. database.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that the complaints were inadmissible hearsay and that their prejudicial effect outweighed any minimal probative value they might have had for imputing knowledge of the defect to the defendants.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a $1.1 billion class action against Ford Motor Co. alleging that certain vehicles contained a defective internal water pump that could cause catastrophic engine failure.

The court analyzed the claims under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Maple Leaf Foods, the court struck the claims for pure economic loss for class members whose water pumps had not yet failed, finding no imminent danger.

The court also refused to certify the breach of contract, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims.

The court certified the action solely for design negligence for class members who actually experienced a water pump failure resulting in property damage or personal injury.

The plaintiff sought approval of a $4.95 million settlement, class counsel fees, and a representative plaintiff honorarium in a class action alleging the defendants misrepresented vehicle fuel economy ratings.

The court initially rejected the settlement approval based on a take-up analysis, but approved it after class counsel provided a revised analysis showing the settlement amount was fair relative to the maximum recoverable at trial.

The court also approved a modified honorarium of $3,000 for the representative plaintiff and class counsel's 33 percent contingency fee.

MarshallZehr Group Inc. (MZ) brought a summary judgment motion against Ideal Developments Inc. (Ideal) seeking payment of charges after MZ cancelled a $15.2 million loan commitment and dismissal of Ideal's counterclaim for alleged wrongful termination.

The court found that MZ lawfully cancelled the loan pursuant to a cancellation provision in the commitment letter, which did not require notice or a cure period as argued by Ideal under the default provisions.

The court granted summary judgment to MZ for $508,071.09, comprising standby interest, lender's fees, and expenses, and dismissed Ideal's counterclaim.

The appellant, Deltro Electric Ltd., appealed from an order requiring it to repay $2 million USD to the respondent, Potentia Renewables Inc., with a receiver appointed over its assets in the event of non-payment.

The dispute arose from a failed business relationship concerning a ground-mount solar project in Barbados.

The application judge found that Deltro had breached and repudiated its obligations under a Letter of Intent and Amendment to Letter of Intent, and that final approval of the project had not been obtained within the required timeframe.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's interpretation of the contractual documents, rejection of fresh evidence, and appointment of the receiver with limited liability provisions.

The applicants, victims of extensive fraud involving forged cheques and unauthorized online banking, sought a declaration that their insurer, State Farm, was obligated to provide coverage.

While State Farm accepted coverage for losses from forged cheques, the central issue was whether losses from unauthorized online banking transactions fell under the policy's "Forgery or Alteration" clause.

The court determined that online banking transactions were analogous to a direct transfer of money, not a promise to pay money, and therefore did not fall within the scope of the "Forgery or Alteration" clause.

The application for coverage of online banking losses was dismissed.

The applicant brought two motions seeking a finding of contempt against the respondents for breaching a prior court order.

The court found the individual respondent, Tejwant Bawa, in contempt for two payroll payments made to a family member without consent, but noted that this contempt had been purged through repayment.

All other allegations of contempt, including failure to provide documents to an auditor and other payments, were dismissed due to lack of sufficient evidence or the exercise of judicial discretion where good faith efforts to comply were apparent.

No additional penalties were levied.

The plaintiff, Aldgate Construction (1988) Limited, brought a summary judgment motion against the defendants, Noreast Foods Ltd. and its guarantor Zi Zhong Wu, for unpaid rent and breach of repair covenants under a commercial lease.

Aldgate sought damages of $105,356.88 and dismissal of Noreast's $1,151,421.99 counterclaim for alleged unlawful termination.

The court granted summary judgment in part for Aldgate in the main action, awarding $79,196.52, finding no genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the breaches of lease and damages.

However, the court dismissed Aldgate's motion to summarily dismiss the counterclaim, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding the lawfulness of Aldgate's re-entry and any consequential damages suffered by Noreast.

The court also specified undisputed material facts for the counterclaim to streamline the subsequent trial.

The applicant tenant sought an order permitting the assignment of a commercial sublease, arguing the respondent landlord unreasonably withheld consent by demanding a security deposit.

The landlord required the deposit because the assignment would release the current subtenant, who acted as an indemnifier.

The court dismissed the application, finding the landlord's request for a three-month rent security deposit was objectively reasonable to protect its business interests and mitigate risks associated with the loss of the indemnifier.

This is a costs decision on appeal from a Superior Court judgment.

The appellant appealed the decision of Justice James F. Diamond dated August 22, 2016, and the associated costs order dated September 27, 2016.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the costs submissions of both parties and determined that the respondent was entitled to costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $80,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court found no basis for awarding costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his claim for declaratory relief related to an insurance policy and sought leave to appeal a substantial indemnity costs award of $1,250,000.

The trial judge found that the policy contained a common mistake in the paid-up values table and ordered rectification.

The appellant argued that rectification was unavailable as a remedy and that any rectification claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding that rectification was an appropriate remedy for the common mistake and that the claim was not statute-barred because the injury, loss, or damage only occurred when the appellant sought to resile from the parties' common understanding.

The court also upheld the substantial indemnity costs award, finding the appellant's conduct worthy of judicial sanction.