Frank Csathy

The applicant, Charles Thomas McNair, sought a declaration that his homeowner’s insurance policy with Aviva Insurance Company of Canada covered a claim arising from a fatal collision involving his Sea-Doo watercraft.

The court considered whether the policy’s 30-day grace period for newly acquired watercraft extended coverage to the Sea-Doo, which was powered by a jet-pump propulsion system.

The court found the policy ambiguous and, applying principles of insurance contract interpretation, held that the grace period did provide coverage.

The court also determined that the incident occurred within the 30-day grace period, as acquisition was defined by possession and control, not merely payment.

The court ordered Aviva to indemnify McNair for costs and disbursements incurred in defending the underlying action and awarded full indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, Vida Mansori, brought a claim under the Occupiers' Liability Act after slipping and falling in a public washroom at a condominium building managed by the defendants.

The plaintiff suffered significant injuries.

The court considered expert evidence on the slip resistance of the washroom tiles and the defendants' maintenance schedule.

The court found that the washroom floor was not inherently unsafe and that the defendants had taken reasonable steps to ensure safety, including regular cleaning and security checks.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove negligence on the part of the defendants, dismissing the action.

Damages were provisionally assessed at $100,000 had liability been found.

The plaintiff, a welder, was injured on the defendant Yaya Foods Corporation's premises due to a faulty excavator operated by an independent contractor.

Yaya Foods brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing it was not liable as an occupier under the Occupiers' Liability Act for the independent contractor's equipment failure.

The court granted the motion, finding that the OLA does not impose a duty on an occupier to inspect the tools used by an independent contractor for safety.

Consequently, Yaya Foods was not found liable for the equipment's lack of maintenance, and the action against them was dismissed.

Intact, an insurer, appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action to recover $2.9 million in excess remediation payments for an environmental spill from other parties (pollutant owners/controllers and their insurer).

Intact sought recovery under s. 99(2)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act and the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Intact, as a voluntary payor beyond its policy obligations and without direct harm to its own property, did not qualify for compensation under s. 99(2)(a) of the EPA.

Furthermore, the unjust enrichment claim failed because the primary benefit of the payments accrued to Intact's own insured, and the payments were made voluntarily with knowledge of the respondents' position.

The appellant's property was destroyed by fire caused by tenants extracting marijuana resin, and his insurer denied coverage based on exclusion clauses.

After the loss, section 129.1 of the Insurance Act was enacted, limiting such exclusions for innocent persons.

The appellant sought to apply this new provision retroactively to his claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision that section 129.1 does not apply retroactively to losses that occurred before its enactment.

The court distinguished between retrospective and retroactive application of legislation, emphasizing the strong presumption against retroactivity.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the jury notices filed by the defendants in two related actions: a motor vehicle accident claim and a broker negligence claim.

The plaintiffs argued the trial was too complex for a jury and cited uncertainties regarding jury trials due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, adopting a modified 'wait-and-see' approach, holding that it was premature to strike the jury notices for a trial scheduled seven months away, and that the actions were not too complex for a jury.

The plaintiff insured sought coverage after his tenants caused an explosion and fire while attempting to extract marijuana resin.

The insurer denied coverage based on a marijuana exclusion clause.

The plaintiff argued that a subsequent amendment to the Insurance Act (s. 129.1) protecting innocent insureds should apply.

The court granted summary judgment to the insurer, finding that the marijuana exclusion clause applied irrespective of the amendment because it excluded a specific use of the property regardless of the insured's knowledge.

Furthermore, the court held that the amendment could not be applied retrospectively as it would affect the insurer's vested contractual rights.