Harrison Cooper

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, Tristian Howell, to produce private electronic communications exchanged with the deceased, Sean McDonnell, to challenge Howell's status as a "spouse" under the Family Law Act for a damages claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the potential probative value of the messages was minimal compared to the significant time, expense, and undue prejudice to the plaintiff.

The decision emphasized the high expectation of privacy for intimate communications and the ample existing evidence supporting the cohabitation period.

The defendant brought a motion seeking an order for the plaintiff to attend an independent medical examination (IME) with a physiatrist specializing in amputations.

The plaintiff, who had sustained a leg amputation, opposed the motion, arguing that their condition had not changed significantly since a previous defence medical assessment by an occupational medicine specialist, and that the request was a "do over." The court granted the motion, emphasizing the principle of fairness to allow the defendant to obtain expert evidence in a specialized area (amputation treatment) to respond to the plaintiff's physiatrist's opinion and to "level the playing field" in assessing damages.

The applicant property manager sought a declaration that the respondent insurer had a duty to defend it in an underlying slip-and-fall action.

The applicant was an additional insured on a commercial general liability policy obtained by a floor mat supplier.

The court found no duty to defend, as the underlying statement of claim alleged independent negligence against the applicant regarding its property management duties, rather than liability arising solely out of the operations of the floor mat supplier.

The court also held that even if a duty to defend existed, the applicant would not be entitled to appoint independent counsel at the insurer's expense, as there was no reasonable apprehension of a conflict of interest.

The applicant rental car company sought the return of a vehicle that had been fraudulently rented, crashed, and towed to the respondent repair shop.

The respondent claimed a lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act for repairs and storage, or alternatively, compensation for unjust enrichment.

The court found no valid lien against the applicant but applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment, ordering the applicant to pay approximately half the repair costs and 60 days of storage fees to recover the vehicle.

No costs were awarded due to both parties' deficient business practices.