George Poirier

The plaintiff, Mizen Holdings Corporation, initiated a subrogated action against the City of Toronto and Ontario Excavac Inc. (OE) for water losses during condominium construction, alleging negligence.

The City and OE issued third-party claims for contribution and indemnity against Mizen's contractors: YYZed Project Management, Otomic Contractors Ltd., and Shor-Cais Foundation Contractors (the "third parties").

The third parties moved for summary dismissal of these claims, arguing Mizen had no right to sue them due to contractual waivers, covenants to insure, and the anti-subrogation rule, which would, under the Giffels principle, bar the defendants' claims.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the scope of the covenant to insure and concluding that the contractual waivers had not crystallized at the time of the losses.

The anti-subrogation rule was also found not to apply to uninsured losses or to prevent the defendants' claims in these circumstances, particularly where waivers were post-tort conduct.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal concerning a coverage dispute.

The appellants challenged the lower court's finding that Proturf was an essential party to the original application.

The appellate court affirmed that determining the existence of an implied contract between the appellants and Proturf was central to the coverage issue, and procedural fairness necessitated Proturf's inclusion as a party, even without direct relief sought against them.

The applicants sought an order declaring that the respondent insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify them in an underlying trip and fall action.

The incident occurred during a gap period between written service contracts with a landscaping contractor insured by the respondent.

The applicants argued an implied contract existed during the gap period.

The court dismissed the application, finding it fatally flawed because the landscaping contractor was not named as a respondent and could not have a ruling made against its interests without an opportunity to be heard.

The plaintiff, an infant who allegedly sustained a brain injury in a motor vehicle accident, brought a motion to compel her mother (the defendant driver) to be present during all of her medical appointments and assessments.

The plaintiff also sought leave under Rule 48.04(1) to bring the motion after the trial record had been passed.

The court granted leave, emphasizing the interests of justice for an infant plaintiff.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's request for the mother to be present in the examination room, finding the defence's proposal—that the mother could accompany the plaintiff and be interviewed separately, while another chaperone could be in the room—struck a reasonable balance.