David Zuber

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants, including opposing counsel, a medical expert, and an insurer from a previous personal injury action, alleging they conspired to suppress a defence medical report.

The defendants brought motions to strike the conspiracy claims under Rule 21 and to remove the plaintiff's counsel of record due to a conflict of interest.

The court granted the motions to strike, finding that non-compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding medical reports does not constitute an unlawful act for the purposes of civil conspiracy.

The court also ordered the removal of the plaintiff's counsel, as a lawyer from the firm was likely to be called as a witness regarding the remaining misrepresentation claim.

The plaintiff's poultry processing plant was destroyed by fire and was significantly underinsured because the original insurance application understated the building's size.

The plaintiff sued her insurance broker and the insurer.

The insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against it, arguing it owed no duty of care to inform the insured or the broker of the size discrepancy it discovered during a subsequent property inspection.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that conflicting evidence regarding the purpose of the inspection and the parties' reliance required a full trial to determine whether a novel duty of care existed under the Anns/Cooper framework.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for a fuel oil spill at the respondents' home.

The trial judge found that the appellants negligently failed to identify that the respondents' fuel oil tank, which was labelled for indoor use, was installed outdoors, and failed to tag it as non-compliant.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by applying the 'material contribution' test for causation instead of the 'but for' test.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while the trial judge articulated the wrong test, she effectively applied the 'but for' test by finding the spill would not have occurred if the appellants had fulfilled their regulatory obligations.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's apportionment of liability, finding of contributory negligence, and damages assessment.

The applicant political party brought an application and motion for an interlocutory injunction against the respondent member and his campaigns, alleging unauthorized use of the party's confidential membership list to send emails criticizing the party leader.

The respondents brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court granted the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that the proceeding arose from expression on a matter of public interest (political debate), the applicant failed to show its claims had substantial merit and no valid defence existed, and the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the public interest in allowing the proceeding to continue.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff moved for judgment on an accepted offer to settle, seeking a determination on the applicable prejudgment interest rate.

Shortly before the offer was accepted, an amendment to the Insurance Act came into force, reducing the prejudgment interest rate for non-pecuniary damages.

The plaintiff argued the amendment was substantive and did not apply retroactively, while the defendants argued it was procedural and did apply.

The court held that the amendment to the calculation of prejudgment interest was procedural in nature and therefore applied retroactively, resulting in the lower interest rate being applied to the settlement amount.