Chris T. Blom

The appellant insurer appealed a partial summary judgment declaring it responsible for covering water damage to the respondent's property.

The insurer had denied coverage based on an exclusionary clause for water entering through basement walls, arguing it applied because water from a burst watermain entered via a pipe transecting the basement wall.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the plain meaning of 'wall' does not include a pipe, as they serve conflicting functions.

The court held that any ambiguity in the exclusionary clause must be resolved against the insurer who drafted the policy.

The plaintiff brought a motion to add three additional representative plaintiffs during a certification hearing for a class action regarding COVID-19 business interruption insurance claims.

The court found that the original plaintiff, Nordik Windows Inc., had an arguable cause of action and was a suitable representative plaintiff.

The court also found that the three proposed additional plaintiffs—Hangar9 Studios Inc., Cash and Carry Inc., and Real Food for Real Kids Inc.—had viable causes of action and met the requirements under s. 5(1)(e) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The class action was fully certified with all four as representative plaintiffs.

The plaintiff brought an action for injuries sustained after slipping and falling on a retaining wall dividing the parking lots of a KFC and a TD Bank.

The remaining defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action on liability.

The court found that the barrier was intended to block vehicles, not for pedestrian crossing, and there was no evidence of regular pedestrian use that would create a duty to maintain it for that purpose.

Furthermore, the plaintiff's evidence regarding the fall was contradictory and unreliable.

The court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.

The plaintiffs brought motions to certify three proposed class actions against Aviva Insurance for the blanket denial of coverage for COVID-19-related business loss claims.

The claims focused on 'restricted access' and 'negative publicity' coverage provisions in Aviva's standard-form policies.

The court found that the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act were met, noting the commonality of the standard-form policies and the identical denial letters.

The two Lerners Actions were certified, and the Nordik Action was conditionally certified pending a motion regarding the representative plaintiff.

The defendant taxi dispatch company brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action against it.

The plaintiff, who claimed $1.6 million in damages for various torts allegedly committed by a taxi driver, did not participate in the motion.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendant's uncontradicted evidence showed no dispatch call was made to the taxicab in question on the date of the alleged incident, thereby establishing no genuine issue for trial.

Following a seven‑day personal injury trial arising from an accident at an amusement park, the plaintiffs obtained damages totalling $304,863.23 and the defendant’s counterclaim for contribution and indemnity against the father was dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $226,000, while the defendant by counterclaim sought its own costs.

The court applied the principles under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 49 and 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing proportionality, the principle of indemnity, and the reasonableness of preparation time and disbursements.

The court reduced excessive preparation hours and excluded certain disbursements but accepted the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rates.

Costs were fixed at amounts considered fair and reasonable in light of the trial result and proportionality considerations.

Following a trial, the defendant requested production of opposing counsel’s computer dockets to obtain evidence of the time and expenses incurred for the purpose of assessing costs.

The plaintiffs objected, arguing such detailed disclosure was not required under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs assessments, emphasizing that fixing costs is not a mechanical calculation based on hours multiplied by rates.

Considering the significant expense and privilege concerns associated with producing detailed dockets, the court held that such production was not appropriate in the circumstances.

The request for production of the dockets was dismissed and the responding party was directed to deliver its costs submissions within two weeks.

The minor plaintiff, who had a pre-existing condition making his bones prone to fracture, was injured while attempting to board a continuously moving amusement park ride.

The plaintiffs sued the amusement park operator for negligence under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The court found the defendant breached its duty of care by failing to post warning signs, failing to provide verbal instructions that the ride did not stop, and failing to have sufficient staff present.

The court dismissed the defendant's claims of contributory negligence against the minor and his father.

Damages were awarded to the minor plaintiff and his parents, taking into account the minor's pre-existing condition under the crumbling skull rule.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer four Toronto actions to Brampton so that they could be tried with two related Brampton actions arising from the same motor vehicle accident.

The motion relied on Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing transfers of proceedings between courts.

Although the accident occurred in Toronto and several Rule 13.1.02 factors appeared to favour Toronto as the venue, the evidentiary record lacked information regarding the convenience of parties and witnesses and whether judicial resources were available in the proposed receiving region.

The court also noted that the required consultation protocol with the Regional Senior Justices had not been followed.

The motion was therefore dismissed without prejudice to bringing a motion to transfer the Brampton actions to Toronto.