Deema Elshourfa

The court considered a motion by the defendant, Echelon Insurance, to compel the plaintiff, 2414840 Ontario Inc. (operating as Cottage Country Family Diner), to answer undertakings and refusals from discovery, including production of the Fitchetts’ personal financial records and the corporation’s entire accountant’s file.

The court held that while the financial health of the corporation and its beneficial owners was relevant to motive in a civil arson claim, the request for the entire accountant’s file was overly broad and amounted to a fishing expedition.

The court also found that the personal financial records of the Fitchetts, as non-parties, could not be compelled through discovery of the corporate plaintiff.

The motion was dismissed.

The moving parties sought to strike two expert reports and their references from the appeal book and compendium (ABCO) and the responding party's factum, arguing they were not evidence at trial.

The court, citing precedent, found that while the reports were not formally entered as exhibits, they were provided to the trial judge as aides memoire and should have been marked as lettered exhibits, thus forming part of the appeal record.

The motion was allowed in part, directing the responding party to amend the descriptions of the reports in the ABCO and factum to clearly state their non-evidentiary status.

The applicants, Toronto District School Board and Simcoe County District School Board, sought leave to appeal an arbitration decision that dismissed their claim for a share of a guarantee fund upon terminating their membership in the Ontario School Boards’ Insurance Exchange (OSBIE).

The court granted leave to appeal, determining that the interpretation of the standard form Reciprocal Insurance Exchange Agreement constituted a question of law, which is subject to correctness review and of precedential value, thus satisfying the criteria for granting leave under the Arbitration Act.

This motion sought court approval under Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for a settlement affecting a minor plaintiff who sustained injuries in two schoolyard incidents.

The defendant denied liability, raising issues of causation and damages.

Despite these challenges and potential adverse cost consequences, the proposed settlement of $15,000 (including $10,070 for injuries, $3,218 for disbursements, and $1,712 for costs) was deemed reasonable, fair, and in the minor plaintiff's best interests by both counsel and the litigation guardian.

The court approved the settlement, finding all requirements of Rule 7.08 had been met, and also approved the legal fees and disbursements.

His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario appealed a decision denying a declaration that its general liability insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, had a duty to defend Ontario in a class action.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred in interpreting the Second Policy's Personal Injury coverage, which did not include the "neither expected nor intended" limitation applicable to Bodily Injury.

However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed because the claim for coverage under the Second Policy was premature.

Ontario had not yet incurred the $5,000,000 "Ultimate Net Loss" self-insured retention, which included defence costs, required to trigger St. Paul's duty to defend.