D. S. Crane

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action for statutory accident benefits arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff sought non-earner benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule but had not submitted a timely application for benefits and did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay of several years.

The court found that the insurer had provided the appropriate accident benefits package and repeatedly advised the plaintiff and his counsel of the need to submit an application.

The evidence demonstrated that no application for benefits was made within the statutory timelines and that the plaintiff lacked any reasonable explanation under the SABS for the delay.

The court held that the insurer suffered prejudice due to the inability to investigate the claim years later and granted summary judgment dismissing the action.

Following judgment in a civil action involving abuse of qualified privilege, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff sought full indemnification of legal costs beyond the ordinary costs regime.

The court held that the law of costs is not subsumed within the law of damages and that costs must be fixed under the discretion granted by the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Applying the partial indemnity scale and considering the complexity of the action and counsel’s work, the court fixed costs for fees and disbursements.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a proposed class action against a pharmaceutical manufacturer regarding the oral contraceptives Yasmin and YAZ.

The proposed class included Ontario residents prescribed and using the drugs prior to November 30, 2011, and derivative claimants under the Family Law Act.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence in the design, testing, marketing, and warning associated with the drospirenone component, claiming it posed greater risks than other oral contraceptives.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action, that the proposed class and common issues were sufficiently defined, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Certification was granted with certain modifications to the class definition and litigation plan.

The applicant sought enforcement of a separation agreement requiring the deceased former spouse to maintain life insurance naming the applicant as irrevocable beneficiary to secure ongoing child support obligations.

After changing employment, the deceased obtained new life insurance but named his new spouse as beneficiary, contrary to the agreement.

Following the deceased’s death, the insurance proceeds were paid to the new spouse while the estate lacked sufficient assets to satisfy the obligation.

The court held that the life insurance proceeds were intended as security for the deceased’s child support obligations and that equity justified the imposition of a constructive trust over the proceeds received by the respondent.

The respondent was ordered to pay funds into court to secure ongoing support payments for the dependent child.

The plaintiff brought a defamation action arising from a newsletter article authored by a member of the Six Nations elected council and published by the council.

The article suggested that the plaintiff improperly demanded and received more than $200,000 in public funds without authorization or evidence of work performed.

The court found that the statements conveyed the meaning that the plaintiff was dishonest and had taken advantage of a crisis to obtain payment she did not earn.

Although the publication occurred on an occasion of qualified privilege because the author was reporting to community members on financial matters, the privilege was defeated by malice.

The court concluded that the author knew the statements were false and published them to discredit the plaintiff.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff with general damages of $60,000.

The applicants sought an order directing the Director of Land Titles to remove certain registrations, including a notice of an unregistered estate, right, interest or equity registered under s. 71 of the Land Titles Act.

The dispute arose from a 2006 agreement involving the transfer of commercial property and contemplated future commercial arrangements between related corporate entities.

The respondent consented to the removal of a registered notice of option.

However, uncertainty remained regarding whether the respondent or related entities possessed a registerable interest in the lands.

The court ordered the removal of the notice of option and directed that a trial of issues be held to determine whether any registerable interest existed under the agreement at the relevant times.

The plaintiff brought a civil action following the breakdown of a romantic relationship, alleging repayment of loans, conversion of personal property, unjust enrichment, and intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The defendant did not defend the action and was noted in default.

The court held that funds advanced during the relationship were loans rather than gifts and ordered repayment.

It further found the defendant liable for conversion of the plaintiff’s truck and unjust enrichment arising from home renovations paid by the plaintiff.

Although the claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering was rejected in law in the family relationship context, the court awarded punitive damages for the defendant’s exploitative and reprehensible conduct.

The applicant sought a vesting order under the Trustee Act transferring full title to partnership property held in trust by the respondent.

The court determined that the parties had formed an oral real estate partnership in 1987 to acquire, maintain, and sell investment properties and that the partnership continued despite discussions of dissolution.

The respondent was entitled to an accounting of partnership assets and reimbursement for excess contributions before any transfer of property could occur.

The court rejected limitation arguments, holding that equitable principles and the doctrine of laches governed the dispute.

Issues relating to accounting and potential transfer of the disputed property were reserved for further submissions.

The plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action after being terminated without cause and without notice from a managerial position with the defendants.

The defendants’ statements of defence had been struck, resulting in the allegations in the statement of claim being deemed admitted at trial.

The plaintiff sought damages for unpaid bonuses and for wrongful dismissal, claiming six months’ pay in lieu of notice.

The court found the claimed six‑month notice period to be within a reasonable range and awarded damages for unpaid bonuses and wrongful dismissal, subject to deduction for salary already paid.

Prejudgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act and costs on a partial indemnity basis were also awarded.

Following the dismissal of a motion for partial summary judgment, the court determined the issue of costs after written submissions.

The moving party had argued that the opposing party lacked an evidentiary basis for its damages claim.

The court found the motion had been reasonably brought but concluded that the factual nature of the dispute and the wording of the agreements rendered the motion premature.

Costs were awarded to the responding party on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $12,500 inclusive, payable in the cause as determined by the trial judge.

Clarke Productions brought a motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim against Category 5 Imaging Ltd. for unpaid invoices totaling $13,324.50 for subcontracted printing work.

Category 5 opposed, alleging defective work and claiming an equitable set-off based on alleged unlawful interference with economic relations.

The court found no triable issue, noting the work was completed, Category 5 was paid by its client, and there was no evidence of defective work.

The court also rejected the equitable set-off claim, finding no factual basis to meet the connectedness requirement.

The motion for summary judgment was granted.

The moving party sought partial summary judgment for payment of $144,000 under a promissory note issued pursuant to a share purchase agreement and related non‑competition, non‑solicitation, and non‑disclosure agreements.

The responding party argued that the note was subject to the broader contractual framework and that the moving party had breached the restrictive covenants.

Evidence suggested the moving party may have assisted a competing company and facilitated the movement of employees and customers during the restricted period.

The court held that these allegations created genuine triable issues and that the evidentiary record did not permit the full appreciation required for summary judgment under Rule 20.04 and the test articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch.

The motion for partial summary judgment was dismissed.

The plaintiffs and a co-defendant brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that losses arising from the collapse of a basement wall were covered under a title insurance policy.

The insurer argued the policy was void due to a material misrepresentation in the insurance application concerning the nature of the dwelling, which was described as a single-family residence despite being used as a multi-unit property.

The court held that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, including whether the misrepresentation was material to the risk and whether the insurer would have issued the same policy had it known the true facts.

The applicants also argued that the insurer had effectively accepted coverage through prior correspondence, but the court found that the evidence surrounding the letter raised factual issues unsuitable for summary judgment.

The motion for partial summary judgment was dismissed.