Ellen Snow

SIR Corp. appealed the dismissal of its application for insurance coverage for business losses and food spoilage incurred during the COVID-19 pandemic due to government-imposed in-person dining restrictions.

The appellant sought coverage under "Civil or Military Authority" and "Ingress/Egress" clauses of its "all-risk" property insurance policy with Aviva.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the policy required direct physical loss or damage for coverage, which the government orders did not cause.

It also held that "catastrophe" in the policy was limited to events similar to "conflagration" (large-scale physical destruction) and did not include the pandemic.

The court also denied leave to appeal the costs award, upholding the application judge's decision.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' insurance coverage application, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought $100,000 based on a pre-hearing costs agreement, or alternatively $254,566.28 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants argued the agreement should not be enforced because the respondent's evolving position caused them to incur significant additional costs.

The court enforced the costs agreement, finding no breach or vitiating factors, and awarded the respondent $100,000 for the application plus $8,136 for the costs submissions.

The appellants sought to overturn a summary judgment granting the respondent recovery on a $460,000 loan secured by a promissory note.

They argued the motion judge erred in applying the summary judgment test from Hryniak v. Mauldin, failing to apply the Statute of Frauds, and enforcing an oppressive interest rate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court affirmed that the promissory note was valid and enforceable, the Statute of Frauds did not apply due to existing written documentation and the parties' conduct, and the agreed-upon interest rate was valid.

This endorsement concerns the costs of an injunction motion where the plaintiffs' request to prohibit the defendant Dongab Co. Inc. from exercising its power of sale on two mortgages was denied.

Dongab and Network Sewer and Watermain Ltd., the successful defendants, sought costs on a full indemnity basis, or alternatively substantial or partial indemnity.

Despite mortgage documentation calling for full indemnity, the court exercised its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act to award costs on a partial indemnity scale, finding the requested amounts extraordinarily high and exceeding the plaintiffs' reasonable expectations.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay $163,000.00 in all-inclusive costs.

The Plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Defendant Dongab Co. Inc. from exercising its power of sale on two mortgages secured on the Plaintiffs' property.

The Plaintiffs argued that preconditions to repayment were not met and that the Notice of Sale had deficiencies, including improper service and incorrect interest calculation.

The court found no serious issue to be tried regarding the mortgages being due and payable, the amounts owing, or the validity of the Notice of Sale.

The court determined that the Plaintiffs' arguments were tactical attempts to delay payment.

The motion for injunctive relief was dismissed.

The applicant restaurant chain sought a declaration of coverage under its commercial 'all risks' insurance policy for business interruption losses caused by government-mandated closures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant argued that coverage was triggered under the policy's civil authority and ingress/egress extensions.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the policy required 'direct physical loss or damage' to trigger coverage.

The court held that the COVID-19 virus and the resulting government orders did not cause direct physical loss or damage to the insured's property, and therefore the losses did not fall within the policy's coverage.

Following a motion to vary a prior order permitting two defence neuropsychological examinations, the court had previously concluded that the defendants failed to disclose a settlement agreement eliminating their adversity on liability.

The order was varied to allow only one examination, and the court considered the appropriate costs consequences of the defendants’ breach of their duty to immediately disclose the agreement.

The plaintiffs sought elevated costs given the defendants’ non‑disclosure and the procedural consequences that followed.

The court held that full indemnity costs were justified as a “consequence of the most serious nature” arising from the breach, even though the conduct was not found to be reprehensible.

Costs of $27,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST were fixed as fair, reasonable, and proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues.

Costs determination following several pre‑trial motions in a civil action arising from a professional hockey incident.

The court considered competing motions concerning disclosure of a settlement agreement, neuropsychological examinations, production of expert materials, and procedural timelines.

The plaintiffs were largely successful, particularly in compelling disclosure of the settlement agreement and obtaining related procedural relief.

While elevated costs were awarded for part of the motion due to the defendants’ failure to disclose the agreement and the resulting prejudice, most costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis after considering Rule 57.01 factors and the overall mixed results on some minor issues.

The plaintiff, a professional hockey player, was seriously injured by the defendant during a game.

The plaintiff sued the defendant and the team owners, alleging vicarious and direct liability.

The defendant issued a third party claim against the head coach.

The defendants and third party subsequently entered into a secret settlement agreement that dismissed the cross-claims and third party claim, and apportioned liability among them.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel production of the settlement agreement.

The court granted the motion, holding that the agreement changed the landscape of the litigation and must be disclosed to ensure trial fairness, regardless of whether settlement privilege is a class privilege or determined on a case-by-case basis.