Chantal Brochu

The City of Thunder Bay applied for declaratory orders and specific performance to compel Canadian National Railway Company (CN) to reopen and perpetually maintain the James Street Swing Bridge for vehicular traffic.

The City argued that CN's perpetual maintenance obligation included upgrading the bridge to modern safety standards.

CN contended its obligation was limited to the original 1906 design and that reopening required significant structural reconfiguration beyond maintenance.

The Fort William First Nation supported the City's position.

The court dismissed the application, finding the City's proposals for reopening the bridge vague and lacking specificity, and that the evidence did not clearly define the required work or establish that such work fell within CN's contractual maintenance obligation.

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 the dismissal of their action against a grocery store after the deceased was struck by another customer's overloaded shopping cart.

The appellants argued the store's safety policies were inadequate and that employees failed to intervene despite seeing the hazard.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the store's general safety policy was reasonable and did not require a standard of perfection.

The court also found it was reasonable for the trial judge to conclude that the store employees did not have a realistic opportunity to intervene in the seconds before the tragic accident occurred.

A 90‑year‑old grocery store patron was struck by another customer pushing an overloaded cart and suffered catastrophic injuries resulting in quadriplegia before his death several years later.

The estate and spouse sued the patron and the store operators alleging occupiers’ liability and negligent failure to control the use of overloaded carts.

The court held the store owed a duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act but had reasonable safety policies and no employee had sufficient opportunity to observe and prevent the hazardous conduct.

Liability was found entirely against the patron who pushed the cart without being able to see where he was going.

Damages for general damages, pecuniary loss, and Family Law Act loss of care and companionship were awarded against the patron, while the claims against the store defendants were dismissed.

The respondents contracted with the appellants to build a new home and with third parties for stucco finishing.

After experiencing water leaks, the respondents sued the appellants for negligence and breach of contract.

The appellants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the two-year limitation period.

The motions judge dismissed the motion, finding the respondents did not have sufficient knowledge of which party was responsible until they received expert reports.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that certainty of a defendant's responsibility is not required to trigger the limitation period, and expert opinions are not always necessary.

The action was statute-barred.

The insurer sought its expenses of $4,351.51 for a preliminary issue arbitration hearing after successfully appealing the initial decision.

The original arbitration decision allowed a third-party insurer to proceed with a claim in the applicant's name, but this was overturned on appeal.

The arbitrator found that the issue in dispute was novel and that the third-party insurer was entirely successful at the original hearing.

The arbitrator concluded that the insurer's subsequent success on appeal did not negate the third-party insurer's success at the preliminary hearing, and ordered each party to bear their own expenses.

Following a successful appeal regarding the validity of an assignment of statutory accident benefits, the appellant insurer sought its legal fees and disbursements.

The Director's Delegate found that the appellant was successful on the novel issue of the assignment's validity.

Applying the criteria for awarding expenses, the Director's Delegate awarded the appellant $4,700 in legal fees and disbursements.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision allowing a tort insurer to pursue a SABS arbitration in the insured's name.

The tort insurer relied on an assignment of SABS claims contained in a consent judgment that settled the insured's tort action.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, holding that a consent judgment approving a settlement is not a 'trial of the action' under s. 267.8(12) of the Insurance Act.

Therefore, the exception to the general prohibition against assigning SABS claims did not apply, and the assignment was void under s. 65(1) of the SABS.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits.

The insurer sought to terminate benefits and scheduled a Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) evaluation, which the applicant did not attend due to pregnancy and travel difficulties.

The insurer terminated benefits and later argued the applicant's request for arbitration was barred by the two-year limitation period.

The arbitrator found that the insurer failed to provide a valid refusal notice in clear and straightforward language as required by the Schedule and the Supreme Court's decision in Smith.

Furthermore, the applicant had made herself reasonably available for a DAC assessment, but the insurer failed to accommodate her.

Therefore, the limitation period had not begun to run, and the applicant was not precluded from proceeding to arbitration.

The applicant was injured in a 1994 motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits from the insurer for ten years.

In 2004, the insurer abruptly terminated or reduced her housekeeping, home maintenance, and transportation benefits, and later denied a treatment plan for acupuncture.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's pre-existing fibromyalgia and arthritis were significantly aggravated by the accident, entitling her to the claimed benefits.

The arbitrator awarded past and ongoing housekeeping, home maintenance, and transportation expenses, as well as the acupuncture treatment.

Furthermore, the arbitrator found that the insurer breached its duty of good faith by arbitrarily reducing benefits without proper assessment or consideration of its legal obligations, and ordered a special award of $18,000 against the insurer.

The appellant appealed a judgment regarding liability for a gas spill.

The appellant had accepted responsibility for the spill, made substantial payments, and indicated that only damages needed to be quantified.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's words and conduct reasonably led to the conclusion that it would not rely on the limitation period.

Following the dismissal of the self-represented plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal, the court determined the costs to be awarded to the successful defendants.

The court reviewed the principles for fixing costs under the new costs grid and the Courts of Justice Act.

Finding no compelling reasons for substantial indemnity, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis to the various defendants, totalling $16,158.08.