Gemma Healy-Murphy

The Honourable Mark Falk (Ret.), as U.S. Ancillary Receiver for Broad Reach Capital, LC (BRC), sought leave to intervene as an added party in an appeal under Rule 13.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appeal concerned a fidelity bond claim by Surefire Dividend Capture, LP (SDC) against National Liability & Fire Insurance Company (Berkshire) for losses from a Ponzi scheme.

The Ancillary Receiver argued that the trial judge's findings, including that BRC was an insured entity under the bond and the non-determination of the alter ego issue, were favorable to BRC's potential claim against Berkshire and could be prejudiced on appeal.

SDC consented, while Berkshire opposed the intervention.

The court granted the motion for leave to intervene, conditional on the U.S. Court confirming the Ancillary Receiver's authority, finding that BRC had a common question of law or fact with the appeal and that intervention would not unduly delay or prejudice the appeal.

Matachewan First Nation (MFN) sought an order for eviction and possession of a house on its reserve occupied by Shannon Alberta, alleging unpaid rent and unauthorized use.

Ms. Alberta contended she owned the home or that rent was offset by repair costs, and that MFN breached a fiduciary duty.

She also sought a stay pending a federal investigation or judicial review.

The court found Ms. Alberta was a tenant, not an owner, and was in significant rent arrears without sufficient evidence of offset repairs.

It held that MFN's fiduciary duty as a Band did not extend to the contractual landlord-tenant relationship.

The requests for a stay were denied due to lack of specificity regarding the investigation and the expiry of the judicial review period.

The court granted MFN an order for possession, requiring Ms. Alberta to vacate by August 31, 2024.

Procor Limited, a defendant, brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking to dismiss the plaintiff Erectoweld Company Limited's claim against it regarding perchloroethylene (PCE) contamination on the plaintiff's land.

The plaintiff theorized the PCE originated from a massive spill on Procor's property that migrated to its land.

The court dismissed the motion, applying the "litigation as a whole" principle and the "bright line test" for partial summary judgment.

The court found that granting partial summary judgment would not resolve the core issue of the PCE's origin, would risk duplication of evidence, and could lead to inconsistent verdicts given the remaining claims against other defendants and their cross-claims against Procor.

The plaintiff was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued the defendants for damages.

The jury found the defendants 62% liable and awarded damages of approximately $2.6 million, including $2.2 million for future care costs.

The trial judge made a conditional assignment order of the plaintiff's future statutory accident benefits (SABs) to the defendants' insurers under section 267.8(12)(a)(ii) of the Insurance Act.

The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the assignment violated strict matching principles and was premature.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the conditional assignment order and rejecting the strict matching approach in favour of a "silo" approach.

The court also denied leave to appeal the trial judge's substantial reduction of the plaintiff's costs award, which was reduced from $795,616.09 to $375,000 due to the plaintiff's counsel's conduct regarding a settlement offer, the lack of material benefit in proceeding to trial, and conduct that unnecessarily extended the trial.

The third party moved for summary judgment to dismiss the defendants' third party claim against him.

The plaintiff was injured when he fell from a rented boom lift after instructing the third party to remove a pin from the machine.

The third party argued he was merely following the plaintiff's instructions and could not be found negligent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a genuine issue for trial existed regarding whether it was reasonable for the third party to follow the instructions without making inquiries or assessing the risk.