Colin Baxter

The applicant developer sought declarations that its insurers, Aviva and Northbridge, owed a duty to defend and indemnify it in a class action.

The class action alleged the developer negligently misrepresented that condominium units would include a heating system and storage locker, which were not provided.

The insurers denied coverage on the basis that the developer's failure to provide the items was an intentional business decision, not an 'occurrence' or accident.

The court agreed with the insurers, finding that the negligent misrepresentation claims were entirely derivative of the intentional breach of contract.

The applications for coverage were dismissed.

The applicant developer sought declarations that its insurers, Aviva and Northbridge, owed a duty to defend and indemnify it in a class action.

The class action alleged the developer negligently misrepresented that condominium units would include a heating system and storage locker, which were not provided.

The insurers denied coverage on the basis that the developer's failure to provide the items was an intentional business decision, not an 'occurrence' or accident.

The court agreed with the insurers, finding that the negligent misrepresentation claims were entirely derivative of the intentional breach of contract.

The applications for coverage were dismissed.

The appellants appealed the motion judge's decision refusing to dismiss a defamation action under the Anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondents, a cigarette manufacturer and its CEO, sued over a magazine article published by the appellants that connected them to organized crime, terrorism, and tobacco smuggling.

The motion judge found the action had substantial merit, that no valid defences existed, and that the harm to the respondents outweighed the public interest in protecting the appellants' expression.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred in balancing public interests, in assessing harm without evidence of financial loss, and in rejecting the justification defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's decision.

The applicant, 1179 Hunt Club Inc., and the respondent, Ottawa Medical Square Inc. (OMS), entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for commercial condominium units.

The transaction failed to close.

Hunt Club sought to retain the $250,000 deposit and hold Ms. Mobarak, OMS's president, personally liable under a purported personal guarantee clause.

The court found that neither party was ready, willing, and able to close the transaction on the scheduled date, leading to the termination of the agreement.

Consequently, OMS was entitled to the return of its deposit.

The court also determined that the personal guarantee clause was ambiguous and, applying the contra proferentem rule, did not amount to a personal guarantee by Ms. Mobarak.

Even if it had, her obligations would have been discharged due to a subsequent reinstatement agreement that varied the original contract without her consent as guarantor.

This motion arose from an application by the Attorney General of Canada seeking the return of confidential taxpayer information inadvertently sent to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and an order preventing its future use.

The CBC, as respondent in the main application, brought a motion to compel the production of various documents from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that were refused during cross-examination on an affidavit.

The Master dismissed the CBC's motion, finding that the requested documents were not relevant to the issues on the application, nor to the deponent's credibility, and that the requests constituted a 'fishing expedition'.

The applicant sought an interim injunction and judicial review to overturn his disqualification from the position of Vice-President, Student Services for the Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) following an election.

The applicant had received the most votes but was disqualified due to alleged electoral offences by another student on his slate.

The court found that the Constitutional Board exceeded its jurisdiction by defining a new electoral offence that was not in force at the time of the election and by disqualifying the entire slate based on this expanded interpretation.

The court concluded that the electoral decisions were subject to judicial review and set aside the disqualification.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion to stay a defamation action pending the completion of a related Federal Court action, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the plaintiff had not justified a substantial indemnity award, as the defendants simply lost a motion they were entitled to bring.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that costs should be in the cause, noting that the unsuccessful motion caused unnecessary expense.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $21,500.

The defendants moved for a temporary stay of a defamation action in the Superior Court of Justice until the completion of a parallel copyright infringement and statutory claims action in the Federal Court.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to meet the heavy onus of showing that continuing the Ontario action would cause them prejudice or injustice, or that a stay would not prejudice the plaintiff.

The court noted that the defamation action involved different substantive elements and remedies not available in the Federal Court.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application, the respondent municipality sought partial indemnity costs of $27,321.55.

The applicant argued for no costs or symbolic costs, asserting he acted as a public interest litigant regarding municipal workplace harassment obligations.

The court applied the criteria for public interest litigants and awarded the respondent symbolic costs fixed at $5,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking interpretation of long-term disability insurance policy provisions relating to coordination of benefits and cost-of-living indexation.

The dispute concerned whether Canada Pension Plan disability benefits should be treated as a direct offset from the policy entitlement or as part of an all-source maximum calculation, and whether indexation should apply to the gross policy amount or the net benefit paid.

The court held that the policy unambiguously required CPP disability payments to be deducted directly from the monthly policy entitlement and that indexation applied only to the net amount actually payable after the deduction.

Extrinsic evidence, including an insurer letter that had initially applied an indirect offset, could not create ambiguity where the contractual language was clear.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The plaintiff accounting firm sought costs as a sanction against numerous defendants for alleged delay in providing answers to undertakings, advisements, and refusals arising from examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants took approximately sixteen months to provide all answers and that the motion was necessary to compel compliance.

The court found that although the timeline was lengthy, the delay was largely explained by the large number of defendants, the volume of undertakings, and the need to obtain detailed accounting information from multiple franchise operators.

The court concluded there was no evidence of uncooperative conduct or improper litigation tactics by the defendants or their counsel.

In the circumstances, a costs sanction was not justified.