Hurley

The plaintiff's home was destroyed by fire.

The insurer paid the policy limits for the building and an advance for the contents.

The plaintiff sued the insurer in negligence, claiming the property was underinsured and seeking additional damages for both the building and contents.

The court dismissed the negligence claim, finding the insurer owed no duty of care regarding the replacement cost calculation, as the plaintiff relied solely on his broker.

The court also found the plaintiff was not entitled to replacement cost value for the building because he chose not to rebuild.

However, the court granted relief from forfeiture regarding the plaintiff's failure to submit a sworn proof of loss for the contents claim, finding the insurer had waived the requirement.

The court assessed the actual cash value of the contents and awarded the plaintiff an additional $51,000.

The applicants, owners of adjacent waterfront cottages, sought a declaration of communal adverse possession over a parcel of land separating their properties from the Ottawa River.

The disputed land had been purchased by the respondents following a municipal tax sale.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that Ontario law does not recognize a communal claim for adverse possession where the claimants only used discrete portions of the land rather than possessing the whole in common.

The court also rejected the applicants' challenge to the respondents' legal title, finding the paralegal's affidavit on title issues inadmissible as expert opinion.

The accused was charged with manslaughter, assault causing bodily harm, and breach of probation following the death of his father.

The father, who had severe coronary disease, died of a sudden cardiac event shortly after a brief physical altercation with the accused.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the altercation was a significant contributing cause of death, as the medical evidence indicated the father could have died at any time from his condition.

The court also found the Crown failed to prove the absence of consent for the assault charge.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The accused was charged with conspiracy, break and enter, and possession of stolen property relating to the theft of copper plates from railway boxcars.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of two unsavoury accomplices, cellphone tower data, and similar fact evidence from a prior conviction.

The court found the accomplice testimony contradictory regarding the accused's involvement in the break and enters, resulting in acquittals on those charges.

However, the court found the cellphone data and similar fact evidence sufficiently confirmed the accomplices' testimony regarding the accused's assistance in loading the stolen copper, resulting in a conviction for possession of stolen property.

The plaintiff mortgagee sought summary judgment on multiple defaulted mortgages granted to the defendants to fund a joint venture land development project.

The defendants argued the mortgages were unenforceable due to an oral agreement that the loans would only be repaid from future lot sales, and disputed the amounts owing.

The court granted summary judgment, holding that the alleged oral agreement was barred by the Statute of Frauds and the doctrine of part performance did not apply.

The court also declined to stay the enforcement of the judgments under Rule 20.08, finding the defendants' counterclaims lacked merit and the prejudice to the plaintiffs in delaying recovery was significant.

The applicants, who lease advertising signs, challenged a municipal by-law amendment that eliminated off-premise portable signs.

They argued the amendment infringed their freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, was ultra vires, and was tainted by bias.

The court found that while the by-law infringed s. 2(b), it was a reasonable limit saved by s. 1, as it addressed pressing aesthetic and traffic safety concerns.

The court also dismissed the ultra vires and bias claims, finding the municipality acted in good faith and within its statutory authority.

The application was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for the appointment of a receiver and an interlocutory injunction, the parties could not agree on costs.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis of $290,313.82, alleging improper conduct by the plaintiff.

The court found no reprehensible conduct warranting substantial indemnity costs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, including the overriding principle of reasonableness and the defendants' divided success on their own motion, the court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants at $120,000.

The applicant estate trustee sought the court's opinion on which of two promissory notes executed by the respondent to her late mother was valid.

The first note required repayment of a $142,000 loan, while the second note, produced by the respondent after her mother's death, stated the loan was forgiven upon death.

The court found that the deceased did not change her mind to forgive the loan, relying on the evidence of two lawyers and rejecting the respondent's evidence, including a purportedly forged email.

The court concluded that only the first promissory note was valid and enforceable.

The applicant, an inmate serving a sentence for drug trafficking and firearms offences, brought a habeas corpus application challenging his security reclassification from minimum to medium and his subsequent involuntary transfer.

The reclassification occurred after the applicant was found to have breached institutional rules by arranging for his spouse to drop off contraband tobacco at his work release location.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the warden's decision was procedurally fair, within statutory jurisdiction, and reasonable given the applicant's duplicitous conduct and breach of trust required for minimum security placement.

The applicant's section 7 Charter challenge was also dismissed.

The plaintiffs loaned money secured by a mortgage, allegedly relying on a property appraisal prepared by the defendant.

The borrower defaulted immediately, and the property was eventually sold at a loss.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant appraiser for negligence and breach of contract.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the action was commenced beyond the two-year limitation period.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding the plaintiffs knew they would suffer a loss and had sufficient facts to sue more than two years before commencing the claim.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash his committal to stand trial on charges of robbery and disguise with intent.

The Crown's case relied on DNA evidence found on two pieces of clothing used as a disguise, which were discovered near the scene of the robbery shortly after it occurred.

The applicant argued that without proof of when the DNA was deposited, there was insufficient evidence to commit him.

The reviewing judge dismissed the application, finding it was open to the preliminary inquiry judge to conclude there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury could convict.