Dennis M. O’Leary

Unifund Assurance Company brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement requiring Dieter Knoppke to pay $600,000.

Alex Krek's estate sought a continuation order and removal of an encumbrance from title.

The court granted Unifund's motion, ordering Knoppke to pay the settlement amount with 5% pre-judgment interest.

The court also granted the Krek estate's requests.

While acknowledging Knoppke's egregious conduct, the court declined to award punitive damages due to his absence and lack of instructions to counsel, opting instead to award full indemnity costs to Unifund and partial indemnity costs to the Krek estate.

The appellant, 908593 Ontario Limited (Eagle Travel), by its receiver, appealed the dismissal of its claim for coverage under a credit risk insurance policy issued by the respondent, Atradius.

Eagle Travel sought indemnity for over $4 million in outstanding accounts receivable from "Discretionary Credit Limit Buyers." The motion judge found, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, that the policy contained a clear and unambiguous aggregate liability limit of $100,000 per insurance year for such buyers.

The Court rejected arguments that the policy was a standard form contract (thus requiring a correctness standard of review) and that the appellant was unaware of the limit, emphasizing the presumption of knowledge for signed contracts and the commercial reasonableness of the policy's interpretation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant, 908593 Ontario Limited (Eagle Travel Plaza) by its receiver, brought a motion seeking coverage under a credit risk insurance policy issued by Atradius.

The core dispute was the interpretation of Article 23300 of the policy, specifically whether a $100,000 maximum liability limit for "Discretionary Credit Limit" (DCL) Buyers applied per DCL Buyer or as an aggregate limit for all DCL Buyers per insurance year.

The court found the policy language clear and unambiguous, concluding that the $100,000 limit was an aggregate for all DCL Buyers per insurance year, not per individual DCL Buyer.

The applicant's motion was dismissed.

This is a personal injury action where the parties jointly sought to adjourn a jury trial to bring a summary judgment motion on a limitation period defence.

The court denied the adjournment, emphasizing that trial dates are a precious commodity and that the summary judgment motion could have been brought years earlier.

However, the court directed that the summary judgment motion on the limitation period issue be heard by the trial judge prior to the scheduled jury sittings, setting a timetable for materials.

This endorsement addresses the costs of an unsuccessful motion brought by the plaintiffs, Milena and Stane Karafiloski, to add Viking Insurance Company of Wisconsin as a defendant.

The original motion was dismissed because the claim against Viking was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

Viking, as the successful party, sought substantial indemnity costs and argued that the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (MVACF) should be jointly liable, alleging MVACF encouraged the motion.

The court found that MVACF was not the "real litigant" and its liability was not impacted by the motion's outcome, thus declining to hold MVACF liable for costs.

Considering factors such as the complexity of the issues, the importance of the matter, and the reasonableness of time spent and hourly rates, the court fixed Viking's costs at $12,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable by the plaintiffs.

The court acknowledged the plaintiff's difficult circumstances but found no justification to limit or postpone Viking's ability to collect costs.

The appellant and the Sickingers applied for costs against Mr. Knoppke following the revocation of a Director's Order.

The Director's Order had required the appellant to remediate a 1990 fuel spill, but was revoked after video evidence revealed Mr. Knoppke pouring fuel oil into a monitoring well, invalidating the sampling data.

The Tribunal found Mr. Knoppke's conduct in tampering with the well to be unreasonable, vexatious, and in bad faith.

The Tribunal awarded costs of $79,437.70 to the appellant and $14,191.96 to the Sickingers against Mr. Knoppke.

Following a trial where the defendant was successful, the court received submissions on costs.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $44,390.72.

The plaintiff argued the amount was disproportionate given the amount at issue was approximately $53,000.

Balancing the principles of indemnity, proportionality, and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, the court fixed costs payable to the defendant at $24,000 all inclusive.

The plaintiff insurance broker sued the defendant insurer for $91,042 based on an erroneous preliminary profit share calculation provided by the defendant.

The actual accrued profit share was $2,402.

The plaintiff argued the erroneous calculation constituted a separate contract or a contract of insurance under the Insurance Act.

The court dismissed the action, finding the letter was not a stand-alone contract, did not constitute insurance, and the erroneous schedule did not bind the defendant to pay the mistakenly calculated amount.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring him to retain a consultant to assess and remediate petroleum impact from a 1990 spill on his property.

The Director subsequently revoked the order after receiving evidence that a third party had tampered with a neighbouring well by adding fuel oil, invalidating the samples, and that there was no credible evidence linking the 1990 spill to the current contamination.

The Tribunal found the revocation consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and dismissed the appeal.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requested an adjournment of the hearing to allow for further environmental sampling and testing regarding a historic petroleum spill.

The appellant consented to the adjournment, while other parties had mixed positions.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it was in the public interest and would not cause environmental harm, as the Director's Order remained in effect.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requested an adjournment of the hearing regarding an order issued under the Environmental Protection Act for the assessment and remediation of a petroleum spill.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the request, vacating the April 2016 hearing dates and adjourning the matter to September 2016.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of an appeal regarding a remediation order.

The Director sought the adjournment because new hydrogeological reports cast doubt on the assumption that a spill on the appellant's property caused the contamination on a neighbouring property.

The appellant consented to the adjournment, while other parties opposed it.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it was in the public interest and necessary to ensure a full and fair hearing given the new scientific evidence.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requested an adjournment of the hearing regarding an order to retain a consultant for petroleum spill remediation.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a teleconference for November 9, 2015, with reasons to follow.

The Appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the retention of a consultant to assess and remediate petroleum impacts on groundwater from a 1990 spill.

Following a preliminary hearing to establish the issues list, several added parties requested the inclusion of new issues.

The Environmental Review Tribunal confirmed the exclusion of the proposed issues, finding no reason to depart from its previous order, but amended one issue regarding the supplier of lake-based water.

The Tribunal also clarified that jurisdictional arguments regarding the addition of another party to the Order were not precluded.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring him to retain a consultant to assess and remediate petroleum impact on groundwater from a 1990 fuel oil spill on his cottage property.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Environmental Review Tribunal issued an order clarifying the scope of the appeal and organizing the issues to be determined at the hearing.

The Tribunal identified seven main issues within the scope of the appeal and excluded issues related to remedy or expanding the Director's Order.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring remedial measures for groundwater contamination at a former manufacturing site.

Following a settlement agreement where Nortel agreed to pay $300,000 to the new property owner (Taggart) and Taggart agreed to a new Director's Order requiring remediation backed by financial assurance, the Director proposed to revoke the original order.

The Tribunal found the proposed revocation was consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, revoked the order, and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding adjustments to a construction contract price for additional excavation and haulage costs.

The trial judge held that the adjustments were governed by a specific letter and unit prices in Schedule A, rather than the general work changes provision in Article 12 of the contract.

The Court of Appeal agreed with this interpretation, noting the parties' conduct was consistent with it.

The appellant's argument that compensation should be based on costs plus 10 percent under Article 12 was rejected, as it was not pleaded at trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $10,000 to the respondent.