Ashley P. Richards

The applicants, a municipal township and its council members, sought a declaration that their liability insurer, the respondent, had a duty to defend them in a civil action.

The underlying action alleged misfeasance in public office and Charter breaches arising from a trespass notice issued against a resident.

The insurer denied coverage for the individual council members, arguing the claims were akin to punitive damages and excluded.

The court found that the pleadings alleged bodily and personal injury falling within the policy's coverage grant and endorsements, and no exclusions applied.

The application was granted, and the insurer was ordered to defend all applicants.

The plaintiff, a former nursing student, sued the defendants (individual employees and two educational institutions) for various torts after being wrongfully accused of academic fraud.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the amended statement of claim.

The court struck the claims for personal liability against individual defendants, breach of fiduciary duty, and defamation, but granted leave to the plaintiff to amend the claim within 45 days.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient particulars for personal liability of employees, failed to establish the elements for a fiduciary duty, and did not plead that the defamatory words were spoken or written by the university defendants.

Costs were agreed upon by the parties.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's subrogated property damage claim on the basis that it was commenced outside the two-year limitation period.

Following a mini-trial on the issue of the insurer's due diligence, the court found that the insurer had all the necessary material facts to support a claim in negligence well before the expiry of the limitation period.

The court rejected the insurer's argument that it was waiting for the Fire Marshal's report to discover the claim.

The defendants' motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

This case conference endorsement addresses interim steps leading up to a mini-trial.

The court ordered the plaintiff to review un-redacted files for communications predating the statement of claim that relate to the decision to commence the proceeding, and to advise the defendants of their existence and nature.

The mini-trial was scheduled for September 1, 2016, with witness examinations in chief to be tendered by affidavit evidence, followed by cross-examination at the mini-trial.

The defendant, The University of Western Ontario, brought a second motion to strike the plaintiff's Further Amended Statement of Claim.

The plaintiff alleged the university failed to provide satisfactory post-graduate training, leading to his failure of a qualifying examination.

The motion sought to strike claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, and argued that the actions fell within academic discretion.

The court ordered the pleadings for breach of contract (paragraphs 8, 11, 44) and breach of fiduciary duty to be struck, both with leave to amend.

The court found it was not plain and obvious that the breach of contract claim failed due to academic discretion immunity, but advised the plaintiff to plead material facts more clearly.

The court clarified that the relationship between a university and its students is not inherently fiduciary and required specific pleading of fiduciary elements.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's subrogated action, arguing it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, having been commenced more than two years after a fire and explosion.

The plaintiff, through its insurer Intact, contended that the claim was not discovered until the Ontario Fire Marshal's report identified the cause as arson.

The court found Intact's evidence regarding its due diligence in investigating the claim to be significantly lacking, relying on hearsay.

Despite the evidentiary deficiencies, the court, applying the enhanced powers under Rule 20, ordered a mini-trial to determine the issue of Intact's reasonable diligence in discovering the claim, emphasizing the need for a fair and just adjudication and the unique circumstances of pending official investigations.

York University sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion to strike a former student's breach of contract claim.

The student alleged a breach of contract related to a course grade from 2006-2007, specifically the failure to return assignments and explain the grade.

The motion to strike was based on the claim being statute-barred and failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action within academic discretion.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision on both the limitation period, particularly whether repeated requests for redress could perpetually extend it, and the sufficiency of the contractual pleadings to demonstrate the university acted beyond its academic discretion.

The plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment regarding their Guaranteed Rebuilding Cost Coverage (GRC) endorsement in a homeowner's policy following a fire loss.

The defendant insurer disputed the claim, arguing that the plaintiffs had not commenced rebuilding within the two-year period stipulated by the endorsement.

The court found that the plaintiffs had taken sufficient steps to "begin to repair or rebuild" within the two-year period, or alternatively, within the extended period provided by a Tolling Agreement.

The court also considered and rejected the application of relief from forfeiture under the Insurance Act or Courts of Justice Act as an alternative basis for relief.

The plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was successful, entitling them to GRC coverage.

The moving defendants sought summary judgment dismissing liability claims arising from a chain-reaction rear-end motor vehicle accident.

They argued there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding their liability.

The court found conflicting evidence concerning how the collision occurred, including discrepancies relating to lane changes and cell phone usage prior to the accident.

Credibility issues affecting both drivers could not be resolved on the written record.

The court held that a full appreciation of the evidence required oral testimony at trial and dismissed the motion.