Cameron Grant

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City's refusal to amend a zoning by-law to permit a construction yard.

The Tribunal granted party status to an abutting landowner and participant status to three other individuals.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to review a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitration award finding it responsible for paying statutory accident benefits to a pedestrian struck by a vehicle.

The appellant had initially agreed to accept priority for the claim but later sought to withdraw its acceptance, arguing it was made in error.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the arbitrator's finding that an insurer cannot unilaterally withdraw its agreement to accept priority absent exceptional circumstances.

The court confirmed that the acceptance of priority precluded the insurer from initiating a priority dispute arbitration under the regulation.

Following dismissal of a civil action arising from alleged flood-related damages, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs relying on unaccepted Rule 49 offers to settle and their complete success at trial.

The court applied Rules 49 and 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering the offers, the complexity of the technical issues, the time spent by counsel, and the parties’ reasonable expectations regarding litigation costs relative to the amount in dispute.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the defendants’ first offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, while reducing certain disbursements, including expert and transcript expenses, as excessive.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant home builder in negligence and nuisance after their basement flooded, causing agreed damages of $65,328.99.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's construction activities on the adjacent lot obstructed a municipal drainage ditch, causing water to back up and overwhelm their sump pump.

The court preferred the evidence of the defendant's expert, finding it more likely that spring runoff overwhelmed the sump pump or that the pump malfunctioned independently.

The court concluded the plaintiffs failed to prove causation on a balance of probabilities and dismissed the action.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant home builder in negligence and nuisance after their basement flooded, causing over $65,000 in agreed damages.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's construction activities on the adjacent lot obstructed a municipal drainage ditch, causing water to back up into their sump pump system and overheat the pump.

The court weighed conflicting expert evidence and preferred the defendant's expert, finding it more likely that spring runoff overwhelmed the sump pump or that the pump malfunctioned independently.

The court concluded the plaintiffs failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the defendant's actions caused the flood, and dismissed the action.

The defendant manufacturer brought a motion to set aside an ex parte order that granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their statement of claim to add the manufacturer as a party.

The manufacturer argued the applicable limitation period had expired and the order was obtained without notice.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in identifying the manufacturer and met the low evidentiary burden to establish a genuine issue regarding discoverability.

Although the court criticized the plaintiffs' counsel for failing to provide notice, it concluded that the original order would not have changed had notice been given.

This is a companion appeal to Unifund Assurance Company v. D.E. and L.E. The appellant insurance company appealed a declaration that it had a duty to defend and indemnify the respondent parents and their minor daughter in an underlying action relating to alleged bullying and harassment.

Applying the reasons from the companion appeal, the Court of Appeal found the application judge erred in interpreting the exclusion clause.

The court also held that the minor daughter was excluded from coverage as the underlying claim was strictly for intentional torts of assault and battery.

The appeal was allowed, and the court declared the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding him jointly and severally liable for a corporate debt owed to the respondent.

The trial judge had imposed personal liability on the appellant because he signed a false certificate under the Bulk Sales Act during the sale of the corporation's business.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in law.

The Bulk Sales Act imposes liability on the buyer, not the seller's officers, for non-compliance, and there was no evidence to support a finding of unjust enrichment or grounds to pierce the corporate veil.

The finding of personal liability was set aside.