Elizabeth A. Quigley

The appellant appealed a jury verdict dismissing her negligence action against the respondent homeowners after she slipped and fell on their staircase.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in excluding the first set of expert slip resistance testing, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's gatekeeping decision under the White Burgess framework, as the excluded testing differed materially from the actual conditions.

Even if the exclusion were erroneous, no miscarriage of justice resulted because the tampering theory was still advanced at trial through other evidence and the jury's verdict turned on the credibility of the parties.

The appellant, a housing corporation, appealed a motion judge's decision striking its claims against a manufacturer and seller of a defective toilet flushing system.

The appellant sought damages for excess water costs resulting from system failure.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, holding that: (1) the manufacturer could not be sued under the Sale of Goods Act as it was not a seller in privity with the purchaser; and (2) the claim in negligence was for pure economic loss, which is not recoverable in tort absent exceptional circumstances not present here.

The court confirmed that such disputes are customarily dealt with by contract, not tort.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following its August 15, 2024 decision.

The parties resolved the costs of the appeal and underlying prejudgment interest motions by consent.

The respondent agreed to pay the appellants an all-inclusive amount of $60,000 for appeal and motion costs.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's prejudgment interest order, arguing errors in applying statutory rates and discretion under the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by misapplying the presumptive 5% rate for non-pecuniary damages, misconstruing the purpose of non-pecuniary damages, and misinterpreting "market interest rates" by equating them with statutory prejudgment rates.

The trial judge also improperly rejected evidence of the insurer's and appellants' actual investment returns.

The appeal was allowed, and the prejudgment interest rate for both non-pecuniary and past pecuniary damages was increased to 8.46%.

The Ottawa Community Housing Corporation (OCHC) sued Sloan Valve Company and Wolseley Canada Inc. for damages related to the alleged failure of the Flushmate System, asserting claims for breach of warranty under the Sale of Goods Act, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation.

The defendants brought a Rule 21 motion to strike OCHC's claims for breach of implied warranty against Sloan and negligence against both defendants, arguing that implied warranties under the Sale of Goods Act require privity of contract and that pure economic loss from non-dangerous, shoddy goods is not recoverable in negligence.

The court granted the defendants' motion, striking both the implied warranty claim against Sloan and the negligence claims against both defendants, affirming that privity is required for implied warranties under the SGA and that economic loss for non-dangerous goods is not recoverable in negligence.

OCHC was granted leave to amend its pleading regarding negligent misrepresentation.

The insureds' home was destroyed by a flood.

The insurer acknowledged coverage but disputed whether the Guaranteed Rebuilding Cost Endorsement covered the increased costs of complying with conservation authority regulations and building codes enacted after the home was originally built.

The application judge held that the endorsement covered all rebuilding costs without limitation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, finding that the policy's exclusion for increased costs due to the operation of 'any law' applied to by-laws and regulations, limiting the insurer's liability for those specific compliance costs to the $10,000 provided in the Building By-Law and Code Compliance Coverage.

The moving party, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, brought two motions for leave to appeal the orders of the lower court regarding summary judgment and certification.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal.

The court awarded agreed aggregate costs of $25,000 to the responding party.

The defendant brought a motion to set the prejudgment interest rate on non-pecuniary damages awarded to the plaintiffs by a jury at 1.3% instead of the prescribed 5%.

The plaintiffs cross-moved, seeking an 8.46% rate for both non-pecuniary and past pecuniary damages.

The court granted the defendant's motion, reducing the prejudgment interest on non-pecuniary damages to 1.3%, citing low prevailing prejudgment interest rates and the future loss component of the award.

The plaintiffs' cross-motion was dismissed, with the court maintaining the default 0.8% rate for past pecuniary damages, rejecting the plaintiffs' arguments for a higher rate based on their investment returns or the defendant's insurer's returns.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity scale after successfully certifying her action as a class proceeding and defeating the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The defendant argued that costs should be reduced or not awarded because the plaintiff failed to obtain a reverse summary judgment and the class definition was narrowed.

The court found the plaintiff was substantially successful and awarded costs of $300,000 plus HST and disbursements, slightly reduced from the claimed amount to reflect the lack of success on the reverse summary judgment request.

The defendant, Sun Life, brought a motion for summary judgment in a class proceeding regarding the calculation of annual indexing increases on long-term disability benefits.

The plaintiff argued for a reverse summary judgment.

The court found that the interpretation of the policy and the correct methodology to calculate the annual indexing of benefits where 'other income' is deducted raised a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court dismissed both the defendant's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's request for a reverse summary judgment.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class proceeding against Sun Life, alleging it incorrectly calculated long-term disability benefits by wrongfully deducting the inflation component from CPP and PSSA benefits.

Sun Life argued the plaintiff failed to meet the certification criteria.

The court found the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action for breach of contract, though not for punitive damages.

The court amended the class definition to include a temporal limit based on the ultimate limitation period and certified the action, finding a class proceeding to be the preferable procedure.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued supplementary reasons to its earlier judgment in Nemchin v. Green, 2021 ONCA 238, which had allowed the appellant's appeal regarding the "top-up" of long-term disability benefits assigned to the respondent's insurer, Aviva.

This addendum addresses the treatment of potential tax refunds from Sun Life's remittances and the allocation of expenses related to pursuing such refunds.

The court clarified that while Aviva is not compelled to seek tax refunds or cease tax deductions, if Aviva chooses not to pursue a tax refund, it must reimburse the appellant's reasonable expenses for bringing such an application, as Aviva would ultimately receive the benefit of any tax refunds.

The appellant, Kossay El-Khodr, appealed an application judge's order to release $385,000 from a trust to Northbridge Commercial Insurance Company.

The funds were held pending the outcome of a previous appeal (the "Assignment Appeal") concerning the assignment of statutory accident benefits (SABs) for future medical and rehabilitation expenses.

The appellant argued that the conditions for release in the Minutes of Settlement were not fully met because the Assignment Appeal did not grant an assignment of *all* medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge correctly interpreted the Minutes of Settlement in the context of the Assignment Appeal, which had assigned the specific categories of benefits at issue, thereby satisfying the conditions for the release of funds to the respondent and preventing double recovery.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the Court of Appeal allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside a trial judge's order requiring the appellant to "top up" assigned benefits due to tax deductions.

The appellant was awarded partial indemnity costs for the appeal.

This endorsement specifically addresses the costs of a prior motion before the trial judge (the "top up motion"), for which the trial judge had made no costs order.

The Court of Appeal found the appellant entitled to costs for this motion, ordering the respondent to pay $10,000, reasoning that the unanticipated nature of the trial judge's order and the parties' failure to seek an advance tax ruling contributed to the litigation.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order requiring her to "top up" assigned long-term disability benefits to account for income tax deductions, arguing procedural unfairness and misinterpretation of s. 267.8 of the Insurance Act.

The Court of Appeal found the "top up" order procedurally unfair as it was not requested by parties and misinterpreted the statutory trust and assignment provisions.

The court held that the assignment applies to net after-tax payments, and the respondent's insurer, as assignee, must bear the burden of addressing tax implications with the insurer and CRA.

The appeal was allowed, and the "top up" order was set aside.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted leave to appeal and allowed an appeal from the Divisional Court, restoring a motion judge's order to strike jury notices in two civil actions (tort and accident benefits) arising from a motor vehicle collision.

The motion judge had struck the jury notices due to significant delays in scheduling civil jury trials in Ottawa amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, ordering judge-alone trials in tranches.

The Divisional Court had overturned this, finding the motion judge's decision arbitrary due to insufficient evidence of prejudice beyond delay.

The Court of Appeal held that delay alone can constitute prejudice, that appellate courts should show deference to discretionary case management decisions, and that the motion judge had sufficient evidence of local conditions to justify the order.

The plaintiffs moved for a stay of a Divisional Court order that reinstated the defendants' jury notices, pending their motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The original motion judge had struck the jury notices due to COVID-19 delays in Ottawa, but the Divisional Court overturned this, finding the decision arbitrary.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test and Sault Dock principles, the Court of Appeal granted the stay, finding a serious question to be tried regarding the Divisional Court's interference with the motion judge's discretion, irreparable harm to the plaintiffs if their scheduled judge-alone trial date was lost, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondents over $2 million in damages arising from a motor vehicle accident where a pedestrian was struck.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by discharging the jury mid-trial, refusing a mistrial, mishandling evidence of CPP disability benefits, and excluding surveillance videos.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge had ample basis to discharge the jury due to scheduling issues and late disclosure of an umbrella insurance policy.

While the surveillance videos should have been admitted, their exclusion did not cause a miscarriage of justice given their minimal probative value.

The plaintiffs, who suffered catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident, brought a motion to strike the jury notice due to the suspension of civil jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to adjourn the trial because the pandemic interfered with their ability to obtain responding medical reports.

The court granted the adjournment for six months to allow the defendants to obtain their medical assessments.

However, the court also struck the jury notice, finding that the indefinite delay of jury trials would cause undue financial prejudice to the plaintiffs, whose accident benefits were nearly exhausted.

The defendant brought a motion requesting that its summary judgment motion be heard before the plaintiff's motion for certification of a class proceeding regarding the calculation of long-term disability benefits.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the motions should be heard together or certification first.

The court applied the factors from Canon v. Funds for Canada Foundation and determined that hearing both motions at the same time would be the fairest and most efficient manner of proceeding, avoiding potential delays and multiple appeals.

The defendant's motion was dismissed.