Chris Stribopoulos

The applicant, a land surveying company, sought indemnification from the respondent insurance company under a professional liability insurance policy for a settlement payment of $3,200,000.00 relating to the Halton Claim.

The respondent had already paid $5,000,000.00 under the policy for an unrelated Port Lands Claim.

The court determined that the Halton Claim fell within the policy's coverage, that it was covered under the first policy period based on when the applicant first received notice of the claim, and that the applicant did not breach its duty to cooperate with the insurer.

The court ordered full indemnification of the settlement amount plus costs.

The moving parties, including Chartwell Retirement Residences, Sienna Senior Living Inc., Extendicare Inc., and Schlegel Villages Inc., brought four motions for leave to appeal the decision of Morgan J. dated March 7, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal without costs.

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.

The plaintiff requested a case conference to resolve a scheduling dispute for a mandatory mediation.

The mediator offered dates in late November, but the third party's counsel was only available starting December 11.

The court expressed exasperation at the parties' inability to resolve a two-week scheduling difference, directing them to agree to the December 11 date or face a case conference where a date would be summarily set and costs submissions heard.

Following the successful certification of a class proceeding arising from a residential high-rise fire, the court determined the costs of the certification motion.

The plaintiffs sought over $435,000 in costs from the defendant, while the third parties sought their costs from the plaintiffs.

Applying the Pearson factors, the court awarded the plaintiffs $348,056.04 in costs against the defendant.

The court also found that the plaintiffs had drawn the third parties into the certification motion by amending the common issues, and ordered the plaintiffs to pay $45,200 in costs to the third parties.

This decision concerns a motion for certification of a class action following a fire in an apartment building.

The court addressed preliminary issues of jurisdiction (Superior Court vs. Landlord and Tenant Board), admissibility of an expert report, and the involvement of third parties.

The court found that the Superior Court had jurisdiction because the total amount claimed exceeded the LTB's monetary limit, even if individual claims might be smaller.

The expert report was deemed admissible for certification purposes.

The class action was certified, with modifications to the proposed class definition and common issues.

Specifically, the court removed references to "contractors" and "subcontractors" from common issues related to the Third Parties, as no direct cause of action was pleaded against them by the plaintiffs.

The court emphasized access to justice and behaviour modification as key factors favoring certification.

The appellant insurer appealed a trial judgment finding that an all risks insurance policy covered damage to the respondent marina's forklift caused by a disgruntled former employee.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the exclusion clause relied upon by the insurer was ambiguous and should be interpreted narrowly against the insurer (contra proferentem).

The appeal was allowed in part, on consent, only to reduce the damages awarded to the $50,000 limit under the simplified rules.

The appellant insurer appealed an order requiring it to produce its underwriting file for discovery in an insurance coverage dispute.

The Divisional Court found that while the motion judge applied the wrong test ('could be relevant' instead of 'semblance of relevance'), the result was correct.

Given the unusual circumstances involving allegations of knowledge possessed by the insured and insurer at the time the policy was issued, the entire underwriting file had a semblance of relevance and was properly ordered produced.

The appeal was dismissed.