Emily Larose

The Acuity defendants moved for summary judgment in a fire loss claim, arguing no causal connection could be proven between the fire and their light fixtures.

The plaintiff alleged a design defect in the open luminaires led to a metal halide bulb rupture, igniting a tarp.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial on causation, noting conflicting expert evidence and deficiencies in the initial fire investigation due to premature site clearance.

The motion for summary judgment was not granted, but the court directed further oral evidence to be adduced on the causation issue to potentially streamline the lengthy and expensive litigation.

Following the defendant's successful motion for summary judgment, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The defendant sought approximately $331,500 on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, relying on a favourable offer to settle.

The plaintiff argued for $210,000.

The court found the matter complex but noted excessive hourly rates for junior counsel and insufficient delegation.

Costs were fixed at $240,000 all-inclusive.

The defendant, Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC), moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff, The Power Limited Partnership's (PLP), claims of negligent misrepresentation, dishonest contract performance, and breach of a 2005 power purchase agreement (PPA).

The claims stemmed from the negotiation and execution of a 1999 PPA and a subsequent 2005 PPA, particularly concerning whether Order in Council (OIC) approval was required for the 1999 PPA and alleged concealment of its execution.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing all claims.

It found no contractual obligation to support the bad faith claim, no deliberate dishonesty or negligence in misrepresentation, and that the 2005 PPA's entire agreement clause excluded prior representations.

Furthermore, the court determined that OIC approval was legally required for the 1999 PPA and that the claims were statute-barred by the applicable limitation periods.

The claims related to the 2005 PPA regarding occasional payment rates, capacity caps, and monthly targets were also dismissed based on clear contractual terms and lack of grounds for rectification.

Following an eight‑day trial in which the plaintiff’s action was dismissed, the successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs after an earlier settlement offer to dismiss the claim without costs.

The plaintiff argued that costs should remain on a partial indemnity scale and challenged both the proportionality of counsel time and several disbursements.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, including the magnitude of the claim, the complexity of the litigation, the importance of the issues to other generators, and the relative financial positions of the parties.

The judge concluded that the amounts sought were excessive and that the unsuccessful party should not bear the full scope of the defendant’s litigation resources.

Total costs were fixed at $250,000 inclusive of HST.

A small hydroelectric power producer sought a declaration and damages concerning the interpretation of a long‑term electricity purchase contract.

The plaintiff argued that payments after the tenth year of the agreement were required to escalate annually with inflation, while the defendant maintained that the contract fixed the tenth‑year rate as a floor and permitted annual rate determinations thereafter.

The court held the contract language was clear and contained no entitlement to an automatic inflation escalator.

Claims based on estoppel arising from the treatment of other generators were rejected.

Although the limitation period did not bar claims arising within two years before the action, the plaintiff ultimately failed to establish entitlement under the contract.