Douglas G. Gunn

Following a successful second trial in an insurance coverage dispute concerning aircraft damage, the court addressed costs and pre‑judgment interest.

The plaintiff sought increased pre‑judgment interest under s.130 of the Courts of Justice Act and substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49.10 based on an earlier offer to settle.

The court exercised its discretion to increase pre‑judgment interest to 1% due to changes in market rates and the lengthy litigation, fixing interest at $7,000.

However, the plaintiff was not entitled to substantial indemnity costs because the offer to settle equaled the eventual judgment and included substantial indemnity provisions that made the judgment less favourable than the offer.

Costs for the second trial were therefore fixed on a partial indemnity basis with a reduction for the use of two senior counsel.

The insured sought recovery under an aircraft insurance policy after a twin‑engine aircraft crashed during an attempted takeoff using only one functioning engine.

The insurer denied coverage, arguing the occurrence was not an “accident” and alternatively that the insured breached a policy condition requiring protection of the aircraft from further loss.

Applying Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence defining an accident as an “unlooked‑for mishap or occurrence,” the court held that negligent conduct may still constitute an accident unless the insured deliberately assumed a known risk.

Although the pilot’s decision to attempt a single‑engine takeoff was negligent and ill‑advised, the evidence did not establish recklessness or deliberate risk assumption sufficient to remove the occurrence from coverage.

The court also found no breach of the policy’s aircraft protection condition.

Judgment was granted for the insured.

A surviving spouse applied for dependant’s support under s.58 of the Succession Law Reform Act after receiving a limited bequest under the deceased’s will.

The deceased’s estate, valued at approximately $2.3 million including foreign assets, primarily left the residue to siblings.

The court held that the surviving spouse qualified as a dependant and that the will and beneficiary designations did not make adequate provision for her proper support, considering her age, health, inability to work, and contributions during the marriage.

Applying the statutory factors in s.62 and the moral obligations analysis from leading Supreme Court authority, the court ordered ongoing monthly support from the estate funded through a lifetime annuity.

The court also adjusted the will’s specific bequest to reflect the support order and prioritized the spouse’s support over other testamentary gifts.

The plaintiffs brought an action against the estate of their 'grandfather' figure, Gus Sorkos, seeking to enforce an oral agreement made in 1985.

Under the agreement, the plaintiffs provided unpaid labour to maintain the deceased's farm and cottage properties for over 25 years in exchange for his promise to leave them the properties in his will.

The deceased later changed his will, leaving the properties to others.

The court found the oral agreement was corroborated by third-party witnesses and a prior will.

The court held that the plaintiffs' acts of part performance took the agreement outside the Statute of Frauds and applied the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, finding it would be unconscionable to deny the plaintiffs the properties after they had detrimentally relied on the deceased's promises.

The estate was ordered to convey the properties to the plaintiffs.