Erik S. Knutsen

The appellant sought to certify a class action against the municipality for property damage caused by pinhole leaks in copper plumbing, allegedly resulting from the addition of sodium hydroxide to the municipal water supply.

The motion judge certified the negligence claim but struck the nuisance claim, finding it barred by s. 449 of the Municipal Act, 2001, which precludes nuisance claims related to the escape of water from water works.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that the nuisance claim was plainly and obviously barred by the ordinary meaning of the statute.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's argument that a breach of contract claim should have been certified, as it was not argued before the motion judge.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the City of Thunder Bay for negligence and private nuisance, alleging that the City's addition of sodium hydroxide to the municipal water supply caused pinhole leaks in copper plumbing pipes, resulting in property damage.

The City brought a cross-motion to strike the nuisance claim, arguing it was barred by s. 449 of the Municipal Act, 2001, which provides immunity for nuisance claims connected to the escape of water from water works.

The court granted the City's motion to strike the nuisance claim, finding it was plainly and obviously barred by the statute.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion to certify the negligence claim, finding it met all the criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for summary judgment.

They argued that s. 97(2) of the Employment Standards Act barred the respondent's civil action for wrongful dismissal because she had already commenced an ESA complaint.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's decision to decline ruling on the summary judgment motion, noting the respondent's serious allegations of intentional torts, including misrepresentation and fraud affecting the ESA process.

The court found that the evidence required for the tort claims would overlap with the wrongful dismissal claim, making summary judgment inefficient and inappropriate.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent was accidentally shot and injured by a youth who subsequently pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

The respondent obtained a civil judgment against the youth and then sought to recover from the homeowner insurance policies of the youth's mother and his aunt and uncle.

The motion judge found the youth was covered under the aunt and uncle's policy and that the 'criminal act' exclusion did not apply because there was no intent to injure.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the 'criminal act' exclusion is unambiguous and applies to any breach of the Criminal Code, regardless of whether the insured intended to cause injury.

The appellant, an Arizona supplier, sued its Ontario dealer for non-payment.

The dealer counterclaimed for defective goods.

Three and a half years after the action commenced, the dealer successfully moved to stay the Ontario proceedings based on a forum selection clause designating Arizona.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in principle by treating the clause as determinative absent waiver.

Exercising its own discretion under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, the Court held that the inordinate delay, the steps already taken in the Ontario litigation, and the close connection to Ontario constituted 'strong cause' not to enforce the forum selection clause.

The appellants appealed the trial judge's apportionment of liability following an accidental shooting where a 13-year-old was severely injured by a 15-year-old friend playing with a firearm at his father's house.

The trial judge had apportioned 50% liability to the 15-year-old, 25% to his father, and 25% to the injured party (conceded), while finding the mother, aunt, and uncle not liable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of no liability for the mother, aunt, and uncle, as they had no knowledge of the firearms and exercised reasonable supervision.

However, the majority allowed the appeal regarding the father's liability, increasing it to 45% (and reducing the 15-year-old's to 30%) because the father failed to secure the firearms, failed to inform the caregivers about the weapons, and demonstrated a prolonged lack of supervision.

The appellant was injured after falling on a municipal sidewalk and successfully sued the municipality for gross negligence at trial, despite failing to provide written notice within the required seven days.

The trial judge found she was physically and mentally incapable of complying due to hospitalization and medication.

The Court of Appeal overturned this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that 'unsound mind' in s. 47 of the Limitations Act includes a lack of mental capacity from any source to perform the requisite steps.

The Court found the Court of Appeal wrongly interfered with the trial judge's factual findings, which did not amount to a palpable and overriding error.