George W. King

The plaintiff, Champion Products Corp., sought partial summary judgment for replacement costs under a multi-peril insurance policy following a significant fire.

The parties had entered into two settlement agreements, the first establishing a 24-month deadline for replacement and the second modifying terms for a specific property in Scarborough.

Champion failed to complete the Scarborough transaction and subsequently sought to substitute a Pickering property.

The defendant insurer, Intact, argued that Champion had forfeited its right to recoverable depreciation due to missed deadlines.

The court found that Intact had waived its right to claim forfeiture through its conduct, which included assessing the substitute Pickering property over an extended period.

Champion was awarded $3,000,000 for replacement costs, representing the amount agreed upon in the second settlement, and its request for a further appraisal to determine a higher amount was dismissed.

The court heard two separate motions for adjournment of a four-week trial.

Desjardins Financial Security Investments Inc. sought an adjournment to bring a summary judgment motion against the plaintiffs, arguing that an MFDA finding of misconduct against plaintiff Popovich provided just cause for termination.

The Woodall defendants sought an adjournment to pursue leave to appeal a decision by Carey J. that dismissed their motion to strike or stay the plaintiffs' claim due to unpaid costs orders.

The court denied Desjardins' motion, finding that they had delayed in bringing the summary judgment motion and that it would not fully dispose of the claim.

However, the court granted the Woodall defendants' motion, adjourning the trial, to allow their appeal process to conclude, citing the risk of conflicting outcomes and wasted judicial resources if the trial proceeded while a potentially dispositive appeal was pending.

The parties executed a separation agreement in 2000, which the responding party filed with the Ontario Court of Justice in 2002.

In 2011, the responding party commenced proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice seeking compliance and child support under the agreement.

The moving party brought a motion to dismiss the claims for lack of jurisdiction.

The court held that under s. 35 of the Family Law Act, once a separation agreement is filed with the Ontario Court of Justice, it becomes an order of that court and the Superior Court lacks jurisdiction to vary or enforce it.

The court ordered the entire proceeding transferred to the Ontario Court of Justice to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.