James A. Manson

The law firm Chitiz Pathak LLP appealed a Master's decision that found "special circumstances" existed to allow Bee Vectoring Technology Inc. to have two sets of legal accounts assessed under the Solicitors Act, despite being outside the statutory time limits or having been paid.

The Master had found special circumstances for the first and second qualifying transactions but not for general corporate matters.

The law firm argued the Master erred in principle by accepting the client's reasons for delay (being too busy and fear of jeopardizing the relationship) as special circumstances.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error in the Master's fact-specific inquiry into special circumstances.

Following a train derailment and tankcar failure, the main action was settled.

The remaining parties brought summary judgment motions regarding third-party claims and contractual indemnity.

The court ruled that opinions in a Transportation Safety Board report are inadmissible, but factual observations are admissible.

The court also interpreted an indemnity clause under Illinois law, finding it did not require the lessee to indemnify the lessor for the lessor's own negligence.

Finally, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the third-party claim against the maintenance contractor, finding no evidence of a duty to inspect the failed welds and that the claims were barred by the US doctrine of preemption.

The appellant, Broadgrain Commodities Inc., sold sesame seeds to Beidahuang Grain Group Co. Ltd. under a CIF contract.

The goods were damaged during transit.

The appellant obtained marine insurance from the respondent, Continental Casualty Company, but the respondent denied coverage.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the appellant's action, finding that although the appellant had an insurable interest, it sustained no loss as it was paid in full by Beidahuang.

The appellant appealed, arguing it suffered loss through subsequent short-payments from Beidahuang.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the appellant failed to provide any credible evidence of loss and that a self-serving affidavit without supporting documentation was insufficient to create a triable issue.

The parties settled an eight-year litigation regarding custom-built moulds.

Following the settlement, the defendants brought a motion for contempt alleging the plaintiff violated interlocutory orders by improperly storing two moulds outdoors, causing them to deteriorate.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the contempt motion.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding the underlying orders did not mandate any specific storage method and the contempt motion was a frivolous and vexatious attempt to re-litigate the settled action.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel answers to refusals from the examination for discovery of the defendant insurer's representative.

The underlying action involved a marine insurance claim for contaminated fish, which the insurer denied based on a process exclusion clause.

The Master ordered the insurer to make reasonable inquiries of a former underwriter and to answer questions about similar claims.

However, the Master refused to order production of a legal opinion obtained by the insurer, finding it was protected by solicitor-client privilege and that no waiver had occurred.

The Acuity defendants moved for summary judgment in a fire loss claim, arguing no causal connection could be proven between the fire and their light fixtures.

The plaintiff alleged a design defect in the open luminaires led to a metal halide bulb rupture, igniting a tarp.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial on causation, noting conflicting expert evidence and deficiencies in the initial fire investigation due to premature site clearance.

The motion for summary judgment was not granted, but the court directed further oral evidence to be adduced on the causation issue to potentially streamline the lengthy and expensive litigation.

This endorsement addresses a procedural dispute regarding the order of upcoming motions.

The Defendants brought a motion for contempt and other relief, alleging the Plaintiff violated a prior court order.

The Plaintiff, in turn, brought a motion to strike the Defendants' contempt motion, arguing it could not succeed and seeking to avoid being compelled to testify or submit an affidavit in defense of the contempt allegations.

The court agreed with the Plaintiff, ruling that the motion to strike should be heard first, as its success could significantly reduce the need for the Defendants' broader motion and protect the Plaintiff's right not to testify in contempt proceedings.

The Acuity defendants moved for summary judgment and sought to exclude the plaintiff's expert evidence from Vincent Rochon regarding the origin and cause of a warehouse fire.

The defendants argued Rochon was not qualified to opine on electrical code/CSA standards, lacked independence and impartiality due to his prior involvement with the insurer's sister company (REI) and the initial site investigation, showed bias, and presented an unreliable "novel science" theory (ricocheting quartz fragments).

The court found Rochon qualified, willing, and able to fulfill his duty as an expert, and that his ricochet theory was not "novel science" but an application of existing scientific principles.

The motion to exclude Rochon's evidence was dismissed, with the court noting that concerns about the investigation's shortcomings or the plausibility of Rochon's theory could inform the weight of the evidence at the summary judgment motion or trial.

Following a successful appeal, the parties agreed on appeal costs but could not agree on the costs of the underlying application or the payment of interest.

The Court of Appeal fixed the application costs at $40,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, taking into account the appellant's offer to settle.

The Court also ordered that interest at three percent per annum is payable on the judgment.

The appellant retained a motor carrier to transport cargo, which was subsequently destroyed in a collision.

After obtaining a default judgment against the carrier for the full value of the cargo, the appellant sought payment from the carrier's insurer under s. 132(1) of the Insurance Act.

The insurer denied coverage, alleging the carrier made a material misrepresentation on its insurance application regarding contracts superseding its standard bill of lading.

The application judge agreed and voided the policy.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the insurer failed to prove a misrepresentation because it never produced the carrier's standard bill of lading into evidence.

The insured corporation sought a declaration that its directors’ and officers’ liability insurer was obligated to indemnify it for defence costs and settlement payments arising from Ministry of Labour enforcement proceedings under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

Former employees of a predecessor company claimed termination and related entitlements, and the Ministry determined that the insured corporation was a related employer under s. 4 of the Act and jointly and severally liable.

The insurer denied coverage, arguing that no claim had been made against the insured or any insured person during the policy period and that the alleged conduct did not constitute a covered wrongful act.

The court held that a claim had been made during the policy period because the Ministry was investigating and pursuing the corporation and its director for liability.

The court further held that liability as a related employer for wrongful dismissal constituted an “Employment Practices Wrongful Act” within the policy and was not excluded by the termination notice exclusion.

The insurer was therefore obligated to indemnify the insured for its losses.

The defendants brought a motion requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs in a solicitor’s negligence action arising from the dismissal of the plaintiff’s earlier employment and disability benefits lawsuit for delay.

The court applied Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Ontario, having lived abroad for extended periods and lacking exigible assets within the jurisdiction.

The plaintiff failed to provide sufficiently detailed financial disclosure to establish impecuniosity and did not demonstrate a good chance of success on the merits of the negligence claim.

The court also considered fairness to both parties given the overlapping proceedings and litigation history.

Security for costs was ordered in the amount of $40,000 on a partial indemnity basis up to the completion of examinations for discovery.