7 total
Appeal dismissed; subrogated insurer entitled to continue action in name of bankrupt insured.
The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for summary judgment.
The underlying action was a subrogated claim brought by an insurer in the names of the respondents for damages arising from a fuel oil spill.
The appellants argued the action was a nullity because the respondents were undischarged bankrupts when the claim was issued, meaning their causes of action had vested in their Trustees.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the insurer's subrogation rights crystallized before the husband's assignment in bankruptcy, and the Trustee had disclaimed interest in the insurance claims.
Thus, the insurer was entitled to commence the action in the husband's name.
Appeal dismissed; genuine issue for trial existed regarding discoverability of construction defect claims.
The appellants appealed a motions judge's decision dismissing their motion for summary judgment based on the expiry of the limitation period.
The motions judge found a genuine issue for trial regarding when the respondent knew or ought to have known that the water leakage was caused by the appellants' acts or omissions.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the motions judge's conclusion or his decision not to exercise fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04, as resolving the discoverability issue would require considering virtually all trial evidence.
Long‑term offender designation imposed for serial child‑sexual‑offence conduct.
The accused pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offences against several young persons, including sexual interference, sexual assault, internet luring, and making and possessing child pornography.
The Crown applied for a long‑term offender designation under s. 753.1 of the Criminal Code.
The court reviewed psychiatric risk assessment evidence and found the offender presented a moderate risk of sexual reoffending, with a pattern of grooming behaviour toward vulnerable adolescents.
The court concluded that the statutory criteria for a long‑term offender designation were satisfied and that risk could be managed in the community through supervision.
A global penitentiary sentence of seven years and one month was imposed along with a five‑year long‑term supervision order and several ancillary orders.
Appeal allowed; trial judge erred in finding detrimental reliance where renovations began before representations were made.
The appellants appealed a trial judge's finding that the respondent undertook property renovations in detrimental reliance on the appellants' negligent misrepresentations.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error.
The evidence showed the respondent commenced renovations long before any representation was made, and the trial judge failed to establish a substantial connection between the alleged losses and the misrepresentations.
The trial decision was set aside and the claim dismissed.
Landlord's appeal dismissed; administrative fees added to hydro bills constituted illegal rent under the Tenant Protection Act.
The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal which found that monthly administrative fees charged to tenants over and above the cost of hydro constituted illegal rent.
The landlord argued the issue fell under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Energy Board.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tenant Protection Act is remedial legislation that takes precedence over the Ontario Energy Board regulation.
The Court found the Tribunal's decision that the additional charges were illegal and had to be refunded was reasonable and correct.
Law firm removed as counsel for Coroner due to perceived conflict of interest.
At the opening of an application for judicial review regarding a coroner's inquest, the applicants brought a motion to remove the law firm representing the respondent Coroner.
The firm had previously done corporate legal work for a corporation that had standing at the inquest.
Although there was no actual conflict of interest, the Divisional Court granted the motion and removed the firm based on the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and avoid any appearance of impropriety.
Appeal dismissed; experts must answer questions on the foundation of their opinions during cross-examination on affidavits.
The plaintiffs in a personal injury action appealed an order requiring their expert witnesses to answer questions regarding the foundation and assumptions of their opinions during cross-examination on affidavits filed in response to a summary judgment motion.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's ruling that cross-examination on an expert's affidavit should be subject to the same rules as other affiants and is not strictly limited to the four corners of the affidavit.
