Jaime J. Wilson

The moving parties sought approval in writing of a settlement for an adult under disability, together with approval of a fee structure agreement and solicitor-client account.

The court held it could not grant the requested relief because the motion record was procedurally deficient, excessively long, improperly organized, and non-compliant with local guidance for court approval motions.

The endorsement criticized the inclusion of unnecessary and duplicative exhibits, inadequate grounds in the notice of motion, and failures to explain the relevance of cited rules.

The motion was adjourned, a fresh record was required, and the parties were directed to choose among a revised written motion, an oral hearing, or a case conference.

The court determined whether costs should be awarded against the main plaintiff, Hassan Salem, for an unproductive pre-trial conference and the adjournment of a six-week trial.

Salem failed to attend the fourth pre-trial conference scheduled for April 3, 2025, and his counsel was also absent due to a scheduling conflict.

Salem had terminated his lawyer's services shortly before trial.

The court found that the fourth pre-trial conference was unproductive and awarded immediate costs.

The court also assessed costs thrown away at twenty percent of the costs and disbursements incurred by the defendant and co-plaintiff, to be paid upon trial decision or full resolution of the matter.

Intact Insurance Company brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and for leave to deliver a statement of defence and counterclaim.

The plaintiffs had noted Intact in default without prior notice, despite Intact's counsel having served a notice of intent to defend and requested an indulgence.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct inappropriate, the delay (if any) inconsequential, and no prejudice to the plaintiffs.

The motion was granted, the noting in default set aside, and Intact was given 30 days to file its defence.

Costs were awarded against the self-represented plaintiff, James McNair, due to his conduct.

This endorsement is the fourth in a series concerning an application for approval of a settlement for damages arising from two falls.

The court identified significant procedural deficiencies, including an improperly amended notice of application, non-compliant affidavit evidence from counsel's associate (failing to meet Rule 39.01(5) and Rule 7.08(4)(b) requirements), and an incomplete draft order.

The application was adjourned, and the applicants were ordered to formally amend their notice of application and file a compliant supplementary record, including proper affidavit evidence and a revised draft order addressing all necessary relief.

The insureds' home was destroyed by a flood.

The insurer acknowledged coverage but disputed whether the Guaranteed Rebuilding Cost Endorsement covered the increased costs of complying with conservation authority regulations and building codes enacted after the home was originally built.

The application judge held that the endorsement covered all rebuilding costs without limitation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, finding that the policy's exclusion for increased costs due to the operation of 'any law' applied to by-laws and regulations, limiting the insurer's liability for those specific compliance costs to the $10,000 provided in the Building By-Law and Code Compliance Coverage.

The applicants, having been successful on the main application, sought costs of $46,351.88 on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent argued the claimed amount was excessive, noting its own counsel spent significantly fewer hours.

The court found the applicants' hourly rates reasonable but the total hours claimed high, suggesting potential overlap between senior and junior counsel.

Applying the principles in Boucher and Rule 57.01, the court fixed costs at $40,000 all-inclusive.

The applicants' home was destroyed by a flood and deemed a total loss.

Their homeowners' insurance policy with the respondent included a guaranteed rebuilding cost (GRC) endorsement.

The applicants sought a declaration that the GRC coverage included the increased costs of rebuilding in compliance with conservation authority regulations and building codes.

The respondent argued that such costs were excluded by a clause limiting coverage for increased costs due to the operation of any law.

The court held that the GRC endorsement covered the compliance costs and that the exclusion clause, which was restricted to 'any law', did not apply to rules, regulations, or by-laws.

The court also found that applying the exclusion as interpreted by the respondent would virtually nullify the GRC coverage.

The respondents were injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an employee of the appellant who was driving his personal vehicle to a remote job site.

The employee had taken a short detour for coffee when the collision occurred.

The motion judge granted summary judgment finding the employer vicariously liable under the first branch of the Salmond test, as the travel and detour were authorized acts within the course of employment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's appeal, upholding the finding that the employee was authorized to drive to the job site and take a short break, making the employer vicariously liable.

The appellant, Gladys Segura, appealed the dismissal of her application to transfer her Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court of Justice and to add the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and Commission for Complaints for Telecom-Television Services (CCTTS) as defendants.

The original Small Claims action involved claims against Rogers Communications Inc. for alleged overcharges, improper service termination, and a phone exchange.

The application judge found that the appellant had not demonstrated that her claim could not be justly and fairly resolved in Small Claims Court, nor had she provided sufficient material facts to support higher damages, equitable relief, or claims against the proposed new defendants.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's decision, affirming the dismissal of the transfer application and the refusal to add new parties.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for psychological injuries.

The plaintiff, who was not present at the motor vehicle accident, suffered psychological trauma after hearing the immediate aftermath of the collision over the telephone while speaking to her injured daughter.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that whether a duty of care extends to an 'auditory witness' via telephone is a novel issue requiring a full trial.

The court also found genuine issues for trial regarding the discoverability of the claim under the Limitations Act and whether the injuries met the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an application to transfer her Small Claims Court action against Rogers Communications Inc. to the Superior Court of Justice and to add the CRTC and CCTTS as defendants.

The plaintiff originally sought $1,858.83 for alleged overcharges and issues related to cellphone repairs and account termination.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a transfer was necessary for a just and fair resolution of her claim, as her monetary claim was well within the Small Claims Court's jurisdiction and she failed to provide a proposed statement of claim outlining any equitable relief or viable causes of action against the proposed defendants.

Following a costs endorsement, the plaintiffs requested a reconsideration, arguing the court omitted to deal with elements of their discovery requests.

The court declined to reconsider, noting that the costs of the plaintiffs' motions for further discovery were already assessed and regrouped under the production issues in the earlier decision.

The court issued a costs endorsement for multiple motions heard on January 9, 2020, in an insurance dispute.

The plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs against AXA and McLeod for successful production motions, and against AXA for a successful motion regarding the "building under construction" exclusion.

The defendants Irvin Hoffman and Cohen & Lord Insurance Brokers Limited also received partial indemnity costs from AXA for their successful motion on the "building under construction" exclusion.

The plaintiffs were awarded substantial indemnity costs against McLeod and the brokers for their unsuccessful summary judgment motions, as the moving defendants acted unreasonably by failing to adduce sufficient evidence on discoverability.

The court fixed specific amounts for each cost award.

The plaintiffs' property suffered two water damage incidents, leading to claims against their insurer (AXA/Intact), an independent adjuster (McLeod), and insurance brokers (Hoffman and Cohen & Lord).

The court addressed multiple motions: the defendants' summary judgment motions regarding limitation periods and an "under construction" exclusion, and the plaintiffs' motion for better discovery and an informed representative.

The court dismissed the defendants' limitation period arguments (without prejudice to trial), found the "under construction" exclusion inapplicable, and granted the plaintiffs' discovery requests, ordering the defendants to provide better affidavits of documents and an informed representative, and for McLeod to be examined for discovery.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a previous order that dismissed her motion to transfer a Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court.

The previous motion was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to appear when called, having been directed to the wrong courtroom.

The court held that Rule 37.14, rather than Rule 38.11, applied because the dismissed motion was interlocutory.

Emphasizing the principles of access to justice and the liberal interpretation of the Rules, the court set aside the dismissal order and permitted the plaintiff to reschedule her transfer motion.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of an interlocutory motion order requiring the production of adjuster's log notes, the complete accident benefits file, and IME raw data.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that under the amended Rule 18.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, requests for reconsideration are only accepted for decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

Because the proceeding was ongoing, the request was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel his former counsel to deliver his complete file to his new counsel.

The former counsel refused to release the file until his disbursement account was paid in full, asserting a solicitor's lien.

The court found that the former counsel was not discharged for cause and therefore had a legitimate lien on the file.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the plaintiff would not be unduly prejudiced and the disputed disbursements could be assessed.

The plaintiff sued the defendant under the Dog Owners' Liability Act after being bitten by a dog in a park.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff could not accurately identify the dog or the owner based on physical descriptions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's evidence of continuously observing the dog until the defendant leashed it created a genuine issue of credibility that could not be resolved on a summary judgment motion.

The court directed the matter to proceed to a summary trial under Rule 76.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 48.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to conduct examinations for discovery of the defendant after the trial record had been filed.

The plaintiff argued that discovery was not conducted earlier due to a belief that liability would not be contested, or alternatively, due to inadvertence.

The court applied the flexible approach from BNL Entertainment Inc. v. Ricketts, finding that a brief discovery would not delay the scheduled trial or prejudice the defendant.

The motion was granted, but no costs were awarded as the motion was necessitated by the plaintiff's counsel.

The plaintiff brought a motion to remove Michael Switzer as lawyer of record for the defendant Mario Ascani's insurer, State Farm Insurance, due to a disqualifying conflict of interest.

The conflict arose from the same law firm representing State Farm in both a tort action against Ascani and an accident benefits arbitration for the plaintiff.

The court found that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption of confidential information sharing within the firm, and that the firm was in a disqualifying conflict, ordering the removal of counsel.