Ava N. Williams

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal by non-settling defendants challenging the approval of a Pierringer agreement in a multi-party motor vehicle accident case.

The court held that the agreement did not cause substantive prejudice to the non-settling defendants, as the Negligence Act places the risk of an insolvent or impecunious tortfeasor on the remaining tortfeasors, not the victim.

The court also declined to grant procedural orders in advance, leaving such matters to the trial judge.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of a Pierringer agreement with the City of Ottawa and leave to amend their statement of claim.

The non-settling defendant, United Petroleum, opposed the agreement, arguing it would suffer prejudice by potentially bearing the insolvent co-defendant's share of damages due to joint and several liability.

The court approved the Pierringer agreement, finding the alleged prejudice speculative and emphasizing the policy objective of promoting settlements.

The court also granted leave to amend the pleading but required the City of Ottawa to remain in the style of cause with its original allegations for apportionment of fault.

The Plaintiff, Nordik Windows Inc., was successful in a certification motion and related motions.

This endorsement addresses the costs for these motions, which involved two rounds of hearings due to a recusal by the initial judge.

The court determined the appropriate costs, considering the re-usable work from the first hearing and the work for the second hearing, ultimately awarding the Plaintiff $1,000,000.00 in all-inclusive costs.

This case concerns a re-hearing of a certification motion for a class action against Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, Aviva General Insurance Company, and Aviva Canada Inc. regarding business interruption insurance claims arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiff, Nordik Windows Inc., sought to certify a class of businesses whose claims were denied or not submitted due to the defendants' alleged blanket denial policy.

The defendants brought cross-motions for summary judgment against Nordik and a declaration concerning the tolling of the limitation period.

The court certified the class action, dismissed the defendants' summary judgment and limitation tolling motions, and allowed the addition of three new representative plaintiffs (Cash and Carry Inc., Hangar9 Studios Inc., and Real Food for Real Kids Inc.).

The decision addresses the adequacy of the representative plaintiff, the identifiable class, and the common issues, particularly regarding notice requirements and the interpretation of insurance policy clauses in the context of pandemic-related business closures.

This endorsement addresses two motions for leave to appeal before the Divisional Court.

The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal a "set aside" order was dismissed with costs awarded to the Defendants.

Concurrently, the Defendants' motion for leave to appeal earlier certification decisions was dismissed without costs, having become moot.

The plaintiff brought a motion to add three additional representative plaintiffs during a certification hearing for a class action regarding COVID-19 business interruption insurance claims.

The court found that the original plaintiff, Nordik Windows Inc., had an arguable cause of action and was a suitable representative plaintiff.

The court also found that the three proposed additional plaintiffs—Hangar9 Studios Inc., Cash and Carry Inc., and Real Food for Real Kids Inc.—had viable causes of action and met the requirements under s. 5(1)(e) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The class action was fully certified with all four as representative plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs brought motions to certify three proposed class actions against Aviva Insurance for the blanket denial of coverage for COVID-19-related business loss claims.

The claims focused on 'restricted access' and 'negative publicity' coverage provisions in Aviva's standard-form policies.

The court found that the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act were met, noting the commonality of the standard-form policies and the identical denial letters.

The two Lerners Actions were certified, and the Nordik Action was conditionally certified pending a motion regarding the representative plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the jury notice in her long-term disability benefits action, seeking to proceed virtually due to COVID-19 related jury trial suspensions.

The court considered factors including available resources, local pandemic impact, prejudice to parties, age of the case, and history of adjournments.

The motion was dismissed, as the plaintiff failed to discharge her onus to show the trial should proceed without a jury or that parties would be better served by its discharge.

The trial was adjourned, and the defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs.

The defendant Chris Campbell moved for summary judgment to dismiss the negligence action against him, arising from his dog biting an employee of a kennel.

The court considered whether there was a genuine issue for trial regarding foreseeability of harm and unreasonable conduct, and whether partial summary judgment was appropriate given the ongoing action against the co-defendant kennel.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding Campbell's negligence, as there was no evidence he knew of a prior minor incident, and the incident was unexpected.

The court also determined that granting partial summary judgment was in the interests of justice, as Campbell's liability was readily separable from the co-defendant's employer liability, and the co-defendant had withdrawn its cross-claim and did not oppose the motion.

The defendant appealed a Master's order extending the time for the plaintiff to serve the Statement of Claim.

The plaintiff had failed to serve the claim for nearly five years following a motor vehicle accident due to previous counsel's inadvertence.

The defendant argued the Master erred by reversing the burden of proof regarding prejudice.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master correctly applied the law by placing an evidentiary obligation on the defendant to provide details of prejudice, which the defendant failed to do.