Daniel John Fife

The London & Middlesex Housing Corporation (LMHC) brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss a claim against it by a tenant, Keith Horn.

Horn alleged LMHC was liable for an assault and battery committed by another tenant, Brian Latondress, who was also employed by LMHC as a Resident Contact.

Horn claimed direct negligence in hiring Latondress and/or vicarious liability.

LMHC argued that Latondress's actions were either self-defence or an independent intentional act outside the scope of his employment.

The court dismissed LMHC's motion, finding that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the nexus between Latondress's conduct and his employment, particularly concerning vicarious liability under the Salmond test and the "enterprise risk" principle.

This action arose from a slip and fall.

Defendant On-Site Maintenance & Repairs Inc., a winter maintenance contractor, brought a motion for dismissal based on formal and deemed admissions.

By the time of the hearing, the sole issue was costs.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to act reasonably in response to information indicating On-Site was not responsible for the area of the fall, and persisted in the claim despite opportunities to discontinue.

The court dismissed the action against On-Site and awarded costs to On-Site, emphasizing the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct in prolonging the litigation.

The appellant obstetrician appealed a jury's finding of negligence and causation in a birth injury case, arguing the jury misapplied the "but for" test and that the verdict was unreasonable due to lack of evidence on timely delivery.

The appellant also claimed the trial judge improperly questioned witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the jury's application of the "but for" test, finding the verdict reasonable based on expert evidence, and concluding the trial judge's questions were proper clarifications within established judicial protocol.

The appellant, a self-employed eavestrough installer, purchased disability insurance from the respondent insurer.

After suffering injuries from a fall in 2007, he received disability benefits until November 2011, when the insurer terminated payments.

The insurer's lawyer sent a letter in January 2012 explaining the termination.

The appellant did not commence an action until April 2015, more than two years after the termination.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the insurer breached its duty of good faith by failing to inform him of the applicable limitation period when it terminated his benefits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that an insurer's duty of good faith does not require it to give notice of a limitation period to its insured.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages for injuries sustained from a trip and fall on a city-owned sidewalk.

The parties settled on damages quantum, leaving liability as the sole issue.

The court applied a two-step analysis under s. 44 of the Municipal Act, 2001, first assessing if the sidewalk was in a reasonable state of repair, considering its character and location.

The court found the sidewalk's discontinuity (11-19 mm, 16 mm at the point of fall) was within the City's adopted Provincial Minimum Maintenance Standards (20 mm maximum) for a small residential street, thus meeting a reasonable standard of repair.

The plaintiff failed to prove the City's non-repair.

Although the action was dismissed, the court also found the plaintiff 20% contributorily negligent for not paying reasonable attention to the sidewalk.

The defendant, successful on a summary judgment motion, sought partial indemnity costs of $51,019.50.

The plaintiff argued for no costs due to the novelty of the issue, or a significant reduction due to excessive claims and impecuniosity.

The court found the issue not novel enough to deny costs entirely, affirming the usual rule that costs follow the event.

However, applying principles of reasonableness, proportionality, and access to justice, and inferring the plaintiff's impecuniosity, the court reduced the defendant's claimed fees by excluding pre-litigation work and significantly cutting research/drafting time.

The final costs awarded were fixed at $23,750.00.

The defendant insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for disability benefits, arguing it was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found the insurer's denial letter was clear and unequivocal, triggering the two-year limitation period in January 2012.

The plaintiff's action, commenced in April 2015, was therefore out of time.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the insurer had a common law duty to advise the insured of the limitation period, stating such an extension of the duty of good faith should be left to the legislature.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action dismissed.

The moving parties brought four motions in the context of three actions arising from a corporate reorganization of family-owned companies.

Three motions sought to remove Sorbara, Schumacher, McCann LLP as counsel of record due to an alleged conflict of interest, and the fourth motion sought an order for consolidation, case management, and/or trial together of the three actions.

The court dismissed the motions to remove counsel, finding no risk of misuse of confidential information or impaired representation, and that disqualification was not necessary to maintain the repute of justice given the history of separate representation during contentious negotiations.

The court granted the motion for the actions to be tried together and for the appointment of a case management judge.

Following a jury trial in a personal injury action where the defendants were found not liable, the defendants sought costs of the proceeding.

The plaintiffs argued that costs should be reduced due to impecuniosity, excessive preparation time, inclusion of disbursements for unused experts and surveillance, and the derivative nature of a Family Law Act claim.

The court held that disbursements for unused experts may still be recoverable if reasonably incurred in preparation for trial, but reduced the defendants’ claim by excluding preparation related to two aborted trials.

The court also considered the plaintiff’s financial hardship as a discretionary factor.

Balancing Rule 57.01 considerations, the court awarded reduced costs to the defendants.

The plaintiff sued his disability insurer for unpaid benefits under a policy that provided two years of benefits for inability to perform his own occupation and thereafter benefits if unable to work at any occupation reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

The insurer terminated benefits after surveillance suggested the plaintiff could perform light work and argued he could pursue supervisory or alternative occupations.

The court found that the plaintiff’s physical injuries, chronic pain, limited education, and cognitive limitations rendered him incapable of performing any suitable alternative occupation.

Surveillance showing brief periods of activity did not establish an ability to work competitively or continuously.

The insurer’s denial of benefits and adversarial claims handling constituted bad faith, warranting aggravated and punitive damages.