4 total
Motion to extend time to perfect appeal granted due to administrative delays in issuing judgment.
The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to perfect its appeal.
The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that the appellant had demonstrated a firm intent to appeal from the outset and that the delay was reasonably explained by the Superior Court's failure to issue and enter the judgment and the Court of Appeal's refusal to accept the filing without it.
The time to perfect the appeal was extended to two weeks after receipt of the issued and entered judgment.
Insured awarded full indemnity costs after establishing insurer’s duty to defend.
Following a successful insurance coverage application establishing that the insurer owed a duty to defend the insured in an underlying action, the parties were unable to agree on costs.
The insured sought full indemnity costs, while the insurer argued that such costs should be reserved for exceptional circumstances.
The court held that where an insurer wrongfully refuses to defend and the insured must bring a declaratory application to establish the duty to defend, the contractual nature of the insurance relationship justifies substantial or full indemnity costs.
The court concluded the insured should be made financially whole for bringing the application and awarded reasonable full indemnity costs.
Summary judgment refused where evidence about resort operator’s responsibility was contradictory.
The defendant hotel management company brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of a personal injury action arising from the collapse of a hotel balcony at a resort in the Dominican Republic.
The plaintiffs alleged that the moving party held itself out as an operator of the resort and could be liable as an occupier.
Evidence suggested a close relationship between the moving party and another corporate entity responsible for resort operations, creating uncertainty regarding operational control and responsibility.
The court held that contradictory evidence regarding the entities’ roles and potential occupier’s liability made summary judgment inappropriate.
The motion was dismissed and the plaintiffs were awarded costs.
Human rights applications dismissed under s. 45.1 as the substance was appropriately dealt with by an internal university tribunal.
The applicant, a university student with a disability, filed human rights complaints against the university and two student unions, alleging discrimination because her disability prevented her from taking enough credits for full-time status, thereby denying her certain benefits.
The university and one student union requested dismissal of the applications under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code and as an abuse of process, arguing the matter had already been dealt with by the university's internal Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the internal tribunal hearing constituted a 'proceeding' that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application against the university.
The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the student union as an abuse of process, noting the internal tribunal had recorded that complaint as resolved.
