2 total
The court dismissed the defendant's summary judgment motion due to genuine issues of credibility and conflicting expert evidence requiring a trial.
The defendant, The Standard Insurance Brokers Ltd. (Standard), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' (Blairs') claim.
The Blairs had previously been granted leave to amend their Statement of Claim to include negligent misrepresentation and punitive damages.
The court dismissed Standard's summary judgment motion, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, including significant credibility issues between the Blairs and a co-defendant, and the need for further expert evidence.
The court emphasized that a fair and just adjudication could not be achieved through summary judgment in this case, and awarded costs to the Blairs on a substantial indemnity basis.
The court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their statement of claim to add claims of negligent misrepresentation and bad faith against an insurance intermediary.
The plaintiffs (Blairs) brought a motion for leave to amend their Statement of Claim to include claims of negligent misrepresentation and bad faith with resultant punitive damages against The Standard Insurance Brokers Ltd. (Standard).
Standard cross-motioned for summary judgment.
The court focused on the motion to amend, considering whether the amendments constituted new causes of action, if they were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, and if they would cause non-compensable prejudice.
The court found that it was not plain and obvious that the claims for negligent misrepresentation and bad faith could not succeed at trial, and that the discoverability principle applied, meaning the limitation period did not begin until the expert report was received.
The court granted leave to amend the Statement of Claim.
