David F. Murray

The plaintiff, a self-represented resident and shareholder of a cooperative housing complex, sued the corporation, its president, and its lawyer for defamation and conspiracy, seeking $850,000 in damages.

The claims stemmed from statements made at an annual general meeting in 2015 and in letters distributed in 2017.

The defendant lawyer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against him, while the plaintiff brought a cross-motion for summary judgment on all his claims.

The court granted the defendant lawyer's motion, dismissing the claims against him as statute-barred or not defamatory and protected by qualified privilege.

The plaintiff's cross-motion was dismissed, and all his defamation and conspiracy claims against all defendants were dismissed, as no genuine issue requiring a trial was found.

Costs were awarded to the successful defendants.

The plaintiffs brought an action under s. 258(1) of the Insurance Act to recover insurance monies to satisfy a judgment arising from a settlement in a personal injury action.

The issue was which insurer—Gore Mutual (insurer of the vehicle owner) or Allstate (insurer of the injured passenger)—should satisfy the judgment.

The motion judge found Gore liable, concluding that the vehicle owner had not breached the insurance policy's cooperation clause and, alternatively, that relief from forfeiture was available.

Gore appealed, arguing the vehicle owner breached the policy by failing to cooperate and failing to provide updated contact information.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the vehicle owner's conduct did not constitute substantial non-cooperation as required to breach the cooperation condition.

The plaintiffs brought a summary judgment motion seeking payment of a $300,000 judgment from either Gore Mutual Insurance Company or Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, following a motor vehicle accident.

The central issue was whether Gore's insured (the driver and owner) breached their insurance policy's cooperation clause.

The court found that the policy owner, Ms. Bass, did not breach her obligation to cooperate, despite Gore's difficulties in locating her, attributing these issues to Gore's own errors in communication and search efforts.

Consequently, the court ordered Gore Mutual Insurance Company to pay the judgment.

The Personal Insurance Company sought leave to appeal a motion judge's denial of summary judgment in a tort action.

The motion judge had found the summary judgment motion premature, requiring evidence of "other uninsured vehicles" and deferring coverage issues until trial.

The Superior Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision because the evidence sought was irrelevant to the issues and deferring coverage issues until trial was problematic.

The court also found the appeal involved matters of province-wide importance regarding uninsured coverage under the Insurance Act.