Chris Afonso

The plaintiff commenced two actions (in 2018 and 2022) against the Crown and the Firearms Safety Education Service of Ontario containing overlapping allegations regarding the suspension of his firearms instructor license.

The defendants brought motions to strike or stay the 2022 Action.

The court struck the 2022 Action against the Crown for failure to provide statutory notice, struck the claims based on 2017 and 2018 events as statute-barred, and stayed the remaining duplicative claims as an abuse of process.

The plaintiff was granted leave to amend the 2018 Action to incorporate the claims from the 2022 Action.

Intact Insurance brought a motion for leave to intervene as an added party defendant in an action arising from alleged water damage caused by its insured, Lucas Roofing.

Intact had previously defended the insured under a reservation of rights but denied coverage after the insured repeatedly failed to cooperate with the investigation and discovery process.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing Intact would take a position adverse to its insured.

The court granted the motion, finding that Intact had a clear interest in the outcome under s. 132(1) of the Insurance Act and that no true prejudice would result to the existing parties.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion to stay or dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, the successful plaintiffs sought costs of $51,474.50 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendant did not contest entitlement but disputed the quantum, arguing the hourly rates were high and time was spent on unnecessary steps.

The court found the hourly rates reasonable and declined to conduct a detailed post-mortem of the litigation steps.

Noting the amount sought was comparable to what the defendant would have claimed, the court awarded the plaintiffs costs in the requested amount of $51,474.50.

The defendant landlord brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a personal injury claim arising from an alleged assault at an after-hours nightclub operating in the basement of its property.

The moving party argued the action was barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 and that it owed no duty of care because it had no knowledge of the alleged illegal nightclub operations.

The court found the plaintiff knew of the assault and began efforts to identify the property owner shortly after the incident, establishing that the claim was discovered well before the limitation deadline.

The court also concluded that, absent evidence the landlord knew of the illegal nightclub activity, no duty of care arose.

The claim was dismissed.

Residents of a Toronto apartment building sought certification of a class action following a fire allegedly caused by negligent maintenance of electrical systems and smart meters.

The proposed class sued the building owner, property managers, superintendent, and the electricity distributor.

The electricity distributor opposed certification, arguing the claim failed to disclose a viable negligence cause of action and that the certification criteria were not met.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed a viable negligence claim against the distributor and that the statutory and regulatory framework governing electricity distribution did not negate the claim at the certification stage.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding with a modified class definition excluding residents operating marijuana grow‑ops in the building.