James Greve

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their negligence action against a school board and school officials for failing to protect their child from bullying.

Although the trial judge found that the respondents breached the standard of care by failing to investigate a prior bullying incident and misplacing related documentation, he concluded that none of these breaches caused the subsequent incident in which the child was injured.

The appellants argued that proper investigation of the earlier incident would have prevented the later injury.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's causation analysis and factual findings.

The plaintiffs brought a negligence claim against the school board, principal, and vice-principal for injuries sustained by the student plaintiff during a schoolyard assault by other students.

The plaintiffs alleged that the school failed to properly supervise the students and investigate prior incidents of bullying, which culminated in an assault that caused permanent tinnitus.

The court found that while the school breached the standard of care in failing to investigate a prior incident and losing an accident report, these breaches did not cause the assault, which was a sudden and unexpected event during a hidden game of tackle football.

The claim was dismissed as the plaintiffs failed to establish cause in fact.

During a trial, the plaintiffs sought to admit a police report for the truth of its contents, citing the unavailability of the drafting officer and the report's reliability as an independent investigation.

Alternatively, they argued for its admission as a business record under the Evidence Act.

The defendants opposed, raising concerns about hearsay reliability and the report's content.

The court ruled the police report admissible as a business record, but with significant limitations: it was admissible for the officer's personal observations, communications, and understanding of events, and for party admissions against interest.

However, it was explicitly ruled inadmissible for the truth of non-party hearsay statements, opinions, impressions, or histories, particularly where sources were unidentified.

The plaintiffs' request for an unredacted report was also denied due to lack of proper motion and jurisdiction.

Following a prior ruling determining vehicle ownership and insurance coverage arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident, the court addressed the costs consequences of that decision.

The court had previously found that both spouses were owners of the vehicle and that their respective insurers were each liable for $1,000,000 in coverage rather than sharing a single limit.

In this costs decision, the successful plaintiffs and certain insurers sought partial indemnity costs of the motion and related proceedings.

The court held that the unsuccessful defendants’ denial of coverage necessitated the involvement of multiple insurers and justified costs awards in favour of the successful parties.

Joint and several costs were ordered against the unsuccessful parties in specified all‑inclusive amounts.

Following a jury trial in a personal injury action, the court addressed two outstanding costs issues: whether the plaintiff’s after‑the‑event (ATE) insurance premium was a compensable disbursement and how prejudgment interest should be calculated following amendments to the Insurance Act effective January 1, 2015.

The court held that ATE insurance premiums are discretionary litigation expenses and are not recoverable as taxable disbursements in Ontario, noting the absence of legislative reform comparable to the United Kingdom regime permitting recovery of such premiums.

On the issue of prejudgment interest, the court held that the amendment to s. 258.3(8.1) of the Insurance Act changing the rate of prejudgment interest does not apply retroactively because prejudgment interest is substantive in nature.

The plaintiff was therefore entitled to prejudgment interest on general damages at the pre‑January 2015 rate of five percent per annum.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision, seeking declarations that two separated spouses were both owners of the vehicle under s.192 of the Highway Traffic Act and that their respective insurers each provided $1,000,000 in liability coverage.

The court held that indicia of ownership demonstrated that the driver was an owner of the vehicle despite the other spouse being the registered owner.

The court further held that consent between co‑owners was legally irrelevant where one owner operated the vehicle, making both owners liable.

Applying principles of equitable contribution and the Insurance Act, the court concluded that both owner policies were primary and each insurer was liable up to its policy limit, making $2,000,000 potentially available to satisfy the loss.

The plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment was granted and the co‑owner’s motion for summary judgment was dismissed.