Bradley W. Stone

Following a jury trial in a personal injury action, the court addressed a post‑trial issue concerning the deductibility of disability insurance benefits received by the plaintiff.

The court determined that the jury had already effectively accounted for the benefits in its award and noted that the insurance had been privately purchased by the self‑employed plaintiff rather than provided through employment.

As a result, the plaintiffs were deemed successful and entitled to costs.

Upon reviewing the plaintiffs’ Bill of Costs, the court found the claimed hours excessive and reduced the recoverable legal fees while allowing disbursements and HST.

Costs were awarded in a reduced amount.

The appellant held an automobile fleet insurance policy with the respondent insurer but failed to disclose that it had employed a driver with a record for impaired driving.

After the driver was involved in a serious accident, the insurer denied coverage for the claim.

The appellant argued that the insurer was required to void or cancel the policy rather than simply deny coverage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no support for the appellant's position and affirming that Standard OAP1 Policy s. 1.4 permits the insurer to deny claims when the insured fails to notify them of a significant change in risk.

The appellant municipality appealed the trial judge's dismissal of its third-party claim for contribution and indemnity against a subdivision developer following a judgment for a homeowner whose basement flooded.

The trial judge found the developer negligent in constructing an asphalt pad without surface water management, but held the municipality's failure to respond reasonably was the proximate cause.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred by failing to apportion negligence.

The Court apportioned negligence equally between the municipality and the developer, ordering the developer to indemnify the municipality for 50% of the damages and costs.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $6,000 in damages and $1,000 in costs for a breach of contract regarding motor vehicle repairs.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by rendering a decision without receiving the appellant's written submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had a reasonable time (six months) to submit written arguments but failed to do so, and therefore was not denied a substantive right.

The court also upheld the damages and costs awards, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusions and no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the engineer's report regarding the Lewis and Maple Avenue South Drains.

The Tribunal confirmed the assessments for the Lewis Drain as modified by the Court of Revision.

For the Maple Avenue South Drain, the Tribunal found the work was required but modified the assessment schedule to reflect that the major factor contributing to the need for the work was the construction of berms by one of the appellants, assessing a special benefit to that owner.

Appeals were filed under the Drainage Act regarding the engineer's report for the Lewis Municipal Drain and the Maple Avenue South Municipal Drain.

The appellants raised concerns about the proposed assessments, the location of the drain, and the potential impact on a fish farm.

During the hearing, alternative routes and designs were proposed, including a late report from a consultant that had not been disclosed to all parties.

The Tribunal declined to redesign the project or accept the late report without proper notice to affected landowners.

The Tribunal referred the report back to the engineer for reconsideration and awarded costs against the appellant who filed the late report for wasting a hearing day.