Christopher I. R. Morrison

The plaintiff, a pizza delivery driver, brought a proposed class action against the franchisor and 141 franchisees alleging misclassification as an independent contractor.

Both the plaintiff and the franchisee defendants appealed the certification judge's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, upholding the finding that the franchisees were not 'common employers' under the Employment Standards Act.

The Court granted the franchisees' appeal in part, finding the motion judge erred in certifying a conspiracy claim among all defendants because the pleadings only alleged the franchisor controlled the agreements, not that the franchisees conspired with each other.

The certification of employment status as a common issue and the negligence claim were upheld.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action for damages arising from an explosion and fire, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the plaintiffs engaged in egregious and abusive conduct, including advancing unfounded and shifting damages theories, failing to produce relevant documents, and relying on concocted evidence.

The court awarded the defendants costs on a partial indemnity scale up to the date of their reasonable offer to settle, and on a substantial indemnity scale thereafter.

The plaintiffs were also held liable for the costs of the third and fourth parties, as their involvement was a natural and inevitable consequence of the litigation.

Total costs and disbursements were fixed at $2,339,433.08.

On a motion concerning appellate jurisdiction, the court held that paragraph one of an order dated June 20, 2025 was interlocutory and did not prevent the respondents from relying on prior findings made in related proceedings.

Because the order was interlocutory, the appeal could not proceed and was quashed.

The court awarded costs of the motion to the moving party on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $7,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

In a delayed-diagnosis medical malpractice action, the defendant physician appealed findings on liability only.

The court reviewed the trial judge’s negligence and causation analysis and found no reversible error.

The appeal was dismissed and the liability determination stood.

The plaintiffs sought over $16 million in consequential economic losses following a natural gas explosion and fire in the laundry room of their apartment building.

They claimed the explosion caused high vacancy rates, prevented rent increases, and diminished the building's value upon its sale five years later.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove the hypothetical losses were caused by the explosion rather than their own business decisions, such as a disruptive elevator modernization project.

The court assessed the actual diminution in value and economic loss at $156,631, which was fully offset by $162,457.81 already paid by the plaintiffs' insurer.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict awarding the respondent over $1.5 million in damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The trial judge declined to put certain jury questions proposed by the appellants regarding causation and apportionment of damages between three successive motor vehicle accidents.

The appellants also challenged the trial judge's summary of evidence and her failure to instruct the jury to disregard expert evidence concerning past income loss.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's approach to jury questions and instructions, and finding the jury's damage award was not plainly unreasonable.

The applicant, West York Sales and Leasing Inc., sought a declaration that it was entitled to a defence under an automobile liability insurance policy issued by the respondent, The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (Travelers Canada).

The dispute centered on whether a specific vehicle was covered by the policy at the time of an accident, given the operation of a monthly reporting fleet endorsement.

The court found that the vehicle was covered, that late reporting did not invalidate coverage, and that any breach of statutory conditions was subject to relief from forfeiture.

The application was granted.

The plaintiff and the franchisee defendants brought motions for leave to appeal the decision of Glustein J. dated December 17, 2024.

The Divisional Court granted both motions for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motions were fixed at $5,000 each and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Carmela and Vincenzo Di Trapani from a costs order made after an 18-day civil jury trial regarding injuries sustained by William “Bill” Pye in a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The trial judge awarded Pye costs of $995,854.50 and prejudgment interest at 3%.

The appellants argued the trial judge failed to scrutinize fees and disbursements, did not apply reasonableness and proportionality, and erred in awarding a higher prejudgment interest rate.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s approach, holding the costs and interest rate were reasonable and supported by the record.

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 moving parties sought an extension of time and leave to appeal two decisions of Stevenson J. The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, awarding costs of $4,350 to the responding party.

This endorsement addresses three motions in a long-standing negligence action stemming from a 2010 explosion.

The Plaintiffs brought motions to strike the Defendants' pleadings for alleged non-disclosure of settlement agreements and for the recusal of the case management and trial judge due to a perceived apprehension of bias.

The Defendants brought a motion for directions concerning the scope of damage claims, specifically challenging a new "reinvestment claim" advanced by the Plaintiffs.

The court dismissed both of the Plaintiffs' motions, finding no change in the litigation landscape requiring disclosure of the agreements and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court granted the Defendants' motion for directions, ruling that the Plaintiffs' new reinvestment theory of damages was unpleaded, untimely, and would cause non-compensable prejudice to the Defendants.

The moving parties sought to review an order from a single judge of the Court of Appeal that dismissed their motion for a stay of two interlocutory orders from a Superior Court case management judge.

The interlocutory orders had vacated pre-trial and trial dates and allowed a motion for directions.

The Court of Appeal panel dismissed the review motion, finding no factual or legal errors by the motion judge, who correctly applied the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay.

The panel also noted that the stay motion was moot as the vacated dates were long past and the disputed motions had already been heard and were under reserve.

The plaintiffs sought a determination of rights under their insurance contract following damage to their property's water supply line and sewer pipe due to corrosion, which was exacerbated by the City of Thunder Bay's water treatment.

The insurer denied coverage, citing exclusions for corrosion and water damage.

The court, applying principles from *MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company*, found the term "corrosion" in the policy unambiguous, applying regardless of its cause.

It also determined that the water damage did not fall within the policy's exceptions.

Consequently, the application for coverage was dismissed.

The moving parties sought a stay of interlocutory orders made by a case management/trial judge, which had set aside a pre-trial date and vacated a trial date to allow a motion for directions to proceed.

The moving parties had previously been denied leave to appeal these orders by the Divisional Court and were now seeking leave to appeal that denial to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the stay motion, finding that the moving parties failed to meet any prong of the RJR-MacDonald test, particularly noting that their motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was unlikely to succeed as the Divisional Court had not mistakenly declined jurisdiction.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the motion judge dated October 3 and 5, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents jointly in the amount of $10,000.

The applicants, Greenwin Inc. and Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, sought a declaration that St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company was obligated to fund 50% of an $18.75 million settlement for Greenwin's share of property damages in a subrogated claim by Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC).

The court dismissed the application, finding that St. Paul did not deny coverage or breach its policy, and that the owned property exclusion applied, precluding coverage for damage to TCHC's property.

The court also found that the applicants failed to obtain St. Paul's consent to the settlement, breaching a fundamental term of the insurance contract, and denied relief from forfeiture.

The appellant insurer appealed a preliminary issue decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) regarding whether the respondent's slip and fall incident constituted an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The LAT intervened to raise a preliminary issue regarding the Divisional Court's jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, confirming that appeals lie only from final decisions of the LAT to prevent fragmentation and delay.

The court also declined the parties' joint request to convert the appeal into an application for judicial review.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against TD Canada Trust, arguing errors regarding the availability of summary judgment in civil jury actions, the exclusion of expert evidence, and procedural fairness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Hryniak test for summary judgment applies equally to civil jury actions, the motion judge properly excluded the expert evidence, and the process was procedurally fair.

The appellant insurer appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing its Rule 21 motion for delay.

The motion sought to determine that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over the respondent's action, which challenged the results of a statutory appraisal process under the Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the appraisal process is final and binding, subject only to judicial review.

The court held that a lack of jurisdiction cannot be treated as a mere irregularity and that delay in bringing a Rule 21 motion challenging jurisdiction should generally only result in costs consequences, not dismissal of the motion.

The action was stayed for want of jurisdiction.