Chester Casimir Wydrzynski

The defendants (Insurers) moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's (Freesen) claim for environmental property damage coverage.

The claim arose from an underground storage tank leak.

The Insurers denied coverage based on two exclusions: a storage tank exclusion and a non-compliance with statute exclusion.

The court granted summary judgment based on the storage tank exclusion, finding the policy's clear wording did not approve the tank as a covered location, despite disclosure in the application.

The court rejected the non-compliance exclusion argument due to insufficient evidence of willful non-compliance.

Costs were fixed at $17,500 for the defendants.

The defendant, Lloyd's Underwriters, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action by the plaintiff, 2689686 Ontario Inc., concerning a roof collapse at a property insured under a Builder's Risk policy.

The court found that the loss was caused by frost and heaving, a peril explicitly excluded by the policy.

The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the defendant's expert opinion or establish an exception to the exclusion.

Consequently, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action against Lloyd's Underwriters.

The plaintiff was seriously injured when his four-wheel drive vehicle tipped backward at a motorsports park.

He brought an action for damages, and the defendants moved for summary judgment based on a release of liability and waiver of claims document signed by the plaintiff upon entry.

The court found that the plaintiff had the opportunity to read the waiver, which clearly stated it was a release of liability, and that the waiver covered the location of the accident and the plaintiff's participation.

The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff brought an action against the Children's Aid Society and several of its employees for $50 million, alleging breach of trust, Charter violations, and defamation after the Society determined she was not an approved caregiver and communicated this to families she was involved with.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the defendants were immune from liability under s. 37(1) of the CYFSA as they acted in good faith.

Furthermore, the court found no fiduciary duty, duty of care, or duty of confidentiality was breached, no Charter rights were engaged, and the defamation claims were defeated by the defences of justification and qualified privilege.

The appellant applied for a liquor sales licence for its restaurant.

A local resident and business owner objected, arguing that granting the licence was not in the public interest due to safety concerns, late-night disturbances near the premises, and prior municipal by-law infractions for smoking shisha.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objector failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that granting the licence was contrary to the public interest, noting a lack of context connecting the street disturbances directly to the appellant's operations.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the liquor licence without conditions.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff pedestrian was awarded damages less than the defendant's Rule 49 offer to settle, the court determined the costs payable.

The plaintiff was awarded costs up to the date of the offer, and the defendant was awarded costs thereafter.

The court reduced the defendant's costs due to a late concession on liability and the improper testimony of the defendant's expert witness, resulting in a net costs award payable to the plaintiff.

The insurer brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify the insured vendor in an action alleging misrepresentation and breach of contract arising from the sale of a residential property with undisclosed prior fire damage.

The court applied established principles governing the duty to defend, including the “mere possibility” threshold and the requirement to determine the true nature of the claim rather than relying on the labels used in the pleadings.

Although the plaintiffs amended their statement of claim to remove the word “fraudulent” from the allegation of misrepresentation, the underlying facts necessarily implied deliberate deception because the vendor knew of a prior fire and an insurance payout.

The court held that the claim could only be characterized as intentional deceit, which fell outside the policy’s coverage for unintentional bodily injury or property damage.

Summary judgment was granted declaring that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify.

Following a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident involving an impaired driver, the plaintiff sought to sign judgment without applying the statutory deductible under s. 267.5 and s. 267.7 of the Insurance Act.

The plaintiff argued the tavern defendant had waived reliance on the deductible by objecting to proposed jury questions that would have apportioned liability solely between the driver and the tavern.

The court rejected the waiver argument, finding the jury’s answers effectively determined the tavern’s negligence at one percent and the driver’s responsibility at the balance.

Applying the principles in Sullivan Estate v. Bond, the court held that an unprotected defendant is liable only for its proportionate share of the statutory deductible.

Judgment was therefore to be signed with the tavern responsible only for one percent of the $30,000 deductible.

Following a jury verdict in a complex personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident involving a licensed establishment, the successful plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $300,000.

The defendant argued that its offers to settle should affect the costs award and that the statutory deductible under s. 267.5(9) of the Insurance Act should be deducted from the damages when assessing whether settlement offers were exceeded.

The court held that the statutory deductible must not be subtracted when determining entitlement to costs, following appellate authority.

Although the defendant’s settlement offers did not comply with Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, they remained relevant under Rule 49.13 as discretionary factors.

Considering proportionality, the complexity of the trial, the amount recovered compared to the amount claimed, and counsel conduct during trial, the court fixed costs at $150,000 plus HST and disbursements.