D. L. Edwards

The plaintiff was injured while riding as a passenger on an ATV driven by Tyler Drenth and owned by Theodore Drenth.

The third-party insurer denied coverage on the basis that Tyler breached a statutory condition of the automobile policy by driving on a highway with a G1 licence after consuming alcohol.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the full third-party limits were available to Theodore.

The court found that Theodore only consented to Tyler driving on a specific lane to access trails, and did not consent to him driving on the shoulder of the road where the accident occurred.

The court held that Theodore's breach of the statutory condition by permitting Tyler to drive on the lane did not taint the entire trip.

The court also found that, in the alternative, relief from forfeiture would be granted.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted.

The parties entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for residential development lands, which was later amended to increase the fixed purchase price.

The vendor sought to terminate the agreement, alleging duress, misrepresentation, and breaches regarding deposits, pre-sales, and water bills.

The vendor also moved to convert the applications into a trial or adjourn the hearing.

The court dismissed the vendor's motion and application, finding no material facts in dispute, no duress or misrepresentation, and that the purchaser had paid the deposits by crediting the cost of home renovations as orally agreed.

The court granted the purchaser's application, confirming the amended purchase price and that the purchaser was not in default.

The appellants appealed the refusal of the Chief Building Official to issue building permits for lots created by a testamentary devise.

The municipality refused the permits because the lots did not front onto an improved street as required by the zoning by-law.

The appellants proposed creating internal roadways owned by the lot owners to connect to public streets.

The court held that this proposal did not satisfy the by-law's requirement that the lots themselves front upon an improved street, and dismissed the appeals.

The applicant sought to proceed with an urgent application for a declaration that imposing an ignition interlock condition on her driver's licence during the COVID-19 pandemic breached her Charter rights.

The court considered the Provincial Direction for urgent matters during the pandemic suspension of regular operations.

Finding that the applicant had adapted to not driving for two years and faced no immediate and significant financial repercussions, the court denied the request to hear the matter on an urgent basis.

Following an appeal of an arbitration award where success was divided, the appellants sought costs of $24,322.76.

The respondents argued that each party should bear their own costs or, alternatively, costs should be fixed at $3,500.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Finding that the appellants were successful in having the arbitrator's reasons deemed inadequate on one issue, while the respondents were successful in having the matter remitted to the original arbitrator, the court concluded that success was divided and made no order as to costs.

The appellants sought leave to appeal an arbitration award arising from the termination of a medical practice business relationship.

The arbitrator had awarded the respondents $946,071, which included a refund of overhead expenses and 'Special Expenses' deducted by the appellants.

The court found that the parties had not contracted out of the right to appeal under s. 45 of the Arbitration Act.

Leave to appeal was granted because the adequacy of the arbitrator's reasons constituted a question of law.

The court held that the arbitrator's reasons were inadequate regarding the Special Expenses, as they failed to explain why the appellants were ordered to repay those amounts.

The court varied the award to order repayment of a 5% overhead increase and remitted the Special Expenses issue back to the original arbitrator for determination.

The plaintiff claimed indemnity under an insurance policy, alleging its apartment building was structurally damaged by the Ladysmith Earthquake.

The defendant insurer denied the claim, arguing the earthquake did not cause the damage.

After a seven-day trial featuring extensive expert testimony on seismology and structural engineering, the court found the earthquake's force was negligible and insufficient to cause the damage.

The court concluded the structural issues were caused by differential soil settlement and dismissed the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff sued the Niagara Regional Police Services Board and several officers for negligent investigation and Charter breaches after being arrested and detained for 78 days on charges that were ultimately withdrawn.

Following a 9-day trial, the court found that while one officer breached the standard of care by failing to review a video interview, this omission did not cause the plaintiff's continued incarceration.

The court concluded the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.

The action was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim.

The plaintiff alleged that she and her late husband gave the proceeds from the sale of two properties to the defendants in trust, and that these funds were used to purchase a condominium to be held in trust for the plaintiff.

The defendant argued the funds were legitimate payouts for discharged mortgages.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding the documentary evidence supported the defendant's position that the funds were mortgage payouts, not trust funds.

The court rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the mortgages were shams designed to avoid creditors.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the plaintiff regarding an outstanding Small Claims Court judgment.

The parties had agreed to settle for $24,000, but the defendant refused to sign the plaintiff's standard Minutes of Settlement because they did not include a separate full and final release.

The court found that the Minutes of Settlement implied a release and that a separate full and final release was not appropriate as the settlement was strictly limited to the judgment debt.

The court held that the defendant repudiated the settlement by refusing to sign the documents and pay the funds, and dismissed the motion.

The plaintiff brought a construction lien action against the defendants for unpaid invoices relating to the installation of an asphalt driveway, concrete curbs, and a concrete pad.

The defendants argued the work was defective because water drained toward their neighbour's property rather than the street.

The court found that the plaintiff had advised the defendants prior to construction that the street elevation prevented drainage to the street, and the defendants had instructed the plaintiff to proceed with drainage toward the neighbour's property.

The court concluded the plaintiff performed the work in accordance with the contract and ordered the defendants to pay the outstanding invoice plus contractual interest.

Following a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff $150,000 in general damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a threshold motion arguing the claims were barred by the Insurance Act.

The court applied the three-part threshold analysis and found the plaintiff suffered a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical function due to chronic pain and shoulder instability.

The court held that the plaintiff's inability to continue his pre-accident employment as a meat cutter, despite being accommodated with a different minimum-wage role by the same employer, constituted a substantial interference with his regular employment.

The defendants' motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed her convictions for threatening death and assault with intent to resist arrest.

She raised several grounds of appeal, including ineffective assistance of counsel, reversal of the burden of proof, and improper admission of prejudicial evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge had improperly reversed the burden of proof by requiring the appellant to assist the court with her evidence and using disbelief of her evidence to accept the Crown's evidence.

The court also found that highly prejudicial bad character and hearsay evidence was improperly admitted at trial.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.