Eleni Maroudas

The appellant appealed a judgment dismissing his action following a jury verdict that found no negligence by the respondent driver, who suffered a medical episode while driving.

The appellant argued the trial judge misdirected the jury on the defence of inevitable accident and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the jury instructions and holding that the verdict was supported by evidence that the respondent had no prior daytime episodes, no medical warnings against driving, and no advance warning of the episode.

The appellant and respondent owned adjacent bush lots.

A dispute arose over the boundary line, with the appellant relying on an old fence and the respondent relying on a recent survey.

The Director of Titles determined that the fence was the best evidence of the original boundary.

The Divisional Court reversed this decision.

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal restored the Director's decision, finding that the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness and that the Director reasonably applied the surveyors' hierarchy of evidence to conclude the fence marked the boundary.

The appellants, a Michigan law firm and one of its members, appealed an order finding that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had jurisdiction over the claims against them and that Ontario was the forum conveniens.

The plaintiffs, an Ontario transportation company and its president, sued the appellants for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty arising from their representation in a Michigan action.

The Court of Appeal applied the Muscutt factors and upheld the motions judge's finding of a real and substantial connection to Ontario, emphasizing the multiplicity of parties and the risk of inconsistent findings.

The Court also upheld the finding that Michigan was not clearly the more appropriate forum, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant, Lafarge Canada Inc., sought a Bullock order regarding costs.

The Court of Appeal declined to make the order, noting that the appellant should have known the inclusion of the successful insurers as respondents on the appeal was unnecessary, as evidenced by the appellant abandoning the appeal against most of them at the end of oral argument.

The Court requested further submissions on whether the successful insurers should receive partial or substantial indemnity costs and whether costs should be fixed or assessed.

The appellant appealed the judgment of Justice Louise Gauthier.

On consent of the parties, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal without costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity scale to the respondents and cross-appellants, Father Reed and the Diocese, in the amount of $18,000.

The Phoenix group of insurers and the Ecclesiastical Insurance Office were each awarded costs of $5,549.02.

The plaintiff brought an action against a priest and a diocese for sexual assault.

The parties settled the main action, but a third party action continued regarding insurance coverage.

The trial judge found that the appellant insurer had a duty to defend the claims under its policy.

The insurer appealed, arguing the policy did not cover sexual assaults by an employee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the policy language broad enough to cover the claims.

On cross-appeal, the Court upheld the trial judge's allocation of defence costs among the insurers but allowed the cross-appeal regarding costs of the third party proceedings, holding that the insureds were entitled to costs on a solicitor-and-client basis due to the insurer's wrongful denial of the duty to defend.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding the division of real estate commissions.

The trial judge had found that the principal of the broker corporation had agreed not to take any part of the appellant's earnings, but held that this waiver did not bind a new shareholder.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by failing to distinguish between the corporation and its shareholders.

The corporation remained bound by the agreement regardless of the change in shareholders, and the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act did not entitle the broker to a percentage of commissions it had agreed to waive.