Benotto J.A.

The appellants, a syndicate of lenders, sued the respondent auditors for negligent and reckless misrepresentation after advancing funds to a company based on audited financial statements that failed to disclose a massive accounting fraud.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment dismissing the lenders' negligence claim, finding that the spectre of indeterminate liability negated the auditors' prima facie duty of care.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that partial summary judgment was inadvisable in the context of the litigation as a whole due to the real risk of duplicative or inconsistent findings at the upcoming trial on the remaining claims.

The appellant insurer appealed the dismissal of its summary judgment motion regarding uninsured automobile coverage.

The respondent argued the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction because the order was interlocutory, not final.

The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that unless a motion judge explicitly invokes Rule 20.04(4) to make a binding determination of law, an order dismissing summary judgment is presumed interlocutory.

The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granting the respondent over $2.2 million for unpaid commercial leases of forestry equipment.

The appellants argued the respondent was not the proper assignee, disputed the amount owing, and claimed equipment malfunctions excused payment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the respondent was the assignee, the debt calculation was correct, and broad exclusion clauses in the leases precluded the equipment malfunction defence.

The court also quashed the respondent's cross-appeal regarding a stay of execution for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's finding that they were engaged in a joint venture involving repeated and dangerous violations of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly instructed herself on the law of joint venture tort liability and that her finding was reasonable on the evidence.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the respondent insurer.

Two appeals were heard together regarding whether the equitable doctrine of laches can defeat a first party insurer's loss-transfer claim under s. 275 of the Insurance Act.

In both cases, the first party insurers delayed several years before requesting indemnification from the second party insurers.

The Court of Appeal held that the defence of laches cannot be invoked against a statutory loss-transfer claim, as it is a claim for legal relief subject to the Limitations Act, 2002, which no longer contains a laches-saving provision.

Furthermore, even if laches were available, the second party insurers failed to demonstrate acquiescence or actual prejudice.

Lombard's appeal was dismissed and TD's appeal was allowed.

The respondents' family members were killed in a motor vehicle collision caused by a driver fleeing a high-speed pursuit by the Akwesasne Mohawk Police Service.

The respondents sued the police service and the governments of Ontario, Quebec, and Canada, alleging vicarious liability and direct negligence.

The governments appealed the dismissal of their summary judgment motions and the granting of the respondents' motion to amend their pleadings.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, finding that the quadripartite policing agreement did not create a relationship sufficiently close to impose vicarious liability on the provinces, and that the governments owed no private law duty of care to the deceased based on a 1991 audit report.

The appellant tenant leased a house and undertook extensive unauthorized renovations.

After defaulting on rent, the landlord sought eviction and arrears, while the tenant sued for the value of the renovations.

The trial judge dismissed the tenant's claims and allowed the landlord's counterclaim via a summary/hybrid trial.

On appeal, the tenant argued the trial judge erred in using the summary procedure, restricting his viva voce evidence, and denying an adjournment for an expert report.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's case management, evidentiary rulings, or refusal to grant an adjournment.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that revoked his transfer to a less secure hospital and maintained him at a secure facility.

The Board's decision was based on the appellant's surprise attack on a co-patient, which changed his risk profile.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's conclusion reasonably supported the revocation and that maintaining the appellant at the secure facility was the least onerous and restrictive disposition.