5 total
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with $5,000 in costs awarded to the responding party.
The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing and awarded all-inclusive costs of $5,000 to the responding party, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario.
Motion to strike granted with leave to amend; OFM owes no statutory duty to post fire watch.
The defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario (HMQ), brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statements of claim in two actions arising from a fire that destroyed a school.
The plaintiffs alleged that the Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM) was negligent in failing to ensure a proper fire watch was in place after the initial fire was extinguished, leading to a rekindling that caused extensive damage.
The court found that the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 does not impose a duty on the OFM to post a fire watch or suppress fires, as those duties belong to municipal fire departments.
The court struck the negligence and nuisance claims against HMQ but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their pleadings to properly allege a duty of care based on specific interactions or assumption of control, provided the alleged duty does not exceed the OFM's statutory powers.
The court denied a motion by non-settling defendants to preemptively dictate trial procedures regarding settling defendants in a Pierringer order.
This decision addresses a motion by non-settling defendants (Watts Water Technologies) to expand a Pierringer Agreement order.
The non-settling defendants sought to include provisions allowing them to use discovery transcripts of settling defendants at trial, serve requests to admit, and compel testimony from settling defendant representatives.
The court denied these requests, finding them premature and matters best left to the trial judge's discretion.
The court emphasized that a model order for class actions should be tailored to specific circumstances and not automatically applied to non-class actions.
Timetable for discoveries set and three actions arising from a water loss ordered to be tried together.
A case conference was held to establish a timetable for three actions arising from a water loss incident.
The moving party confirmed it owned the water heater and did not retain maintenance services, leading the responding parties to seek instructions to dismiss the action against the rental and maintenance companies.
The parties agreed to a schedule for discoveries and to an order that the three actions be tried together.
Case conference adjourned to establish a timetable and determine proper parties in a water loss dispute.
Three actions were brought arising out of a water loss incident.
The defendant sought a timetable for the conduct of the actions due to the complexity of scheduling examinations for discovery with multiple parties.
The court directed the defendant to provide information regarding the ownership and maintenance of the water heater to determine if Enercare or Reliance Home Comfort are proper parties.
The case conference was adjourned to establish the timetable and determine the status of the actions against the water heater companies.
The court also indicated a willingness to order the three actions to be tried together upon consent of the parties.
