James Prosser

The defendant employer appealed a Small Claims Court judgment for wrongful dismissal.

The appeal grounds were that the Deputy Judge erred in finding the employment contract contracted out of ESA obligations for a construction employee not entitled to statutory notice, and failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the termination clause void for potentially violating the ESA by contracting out of benefits and severance pay, even if those specific entitlements did not apply at the time of termination or if the employee's role changed.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a real estate brokerage, which admitted having insufficient assets in Ontario to cover a potential costs award, though its shareholders were not impecunious.

The court, applying a holistic approach under Rule 56.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, determined that it was just to order security for costs.

The plaintiff's claim was found to be arguable but not demonstrated to have a good chance of success on the merits.

The court granted the motion, ordering the plaintiff to post $60,000 for one group of defendants and $45,000 for another, covering the pleading and discovery stages, and awarded motion costs to the successful defendants.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision interpreting a landlord-tenant agreement as a complete release of the tenant from liability for fire damage.

The appellants argued the release applied only to the tenant personally but preserved a subrogated claim by the landlord's insurer against the tenant's insurer.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's interpretation, finding that releasing the tenant precluded any subrogated claim against the tenant's insurer.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The defendant, a former tenant, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for damages caused by a fire in his apartment.

The defendant argued that a letter from the plaintiffs, combined with an agreement to terminate his tenancy, constituted a release from liability for the fire.

The plaintiffs contended that the letter was not a release or was only a partial release, preserving their right to pursue a subrogated claim through their insurer.

The court found that the letter and termination agreement, read as an integrated whole, plainly released the defendant from liability for the fire, interpreting the phrase "damages will be dealt with between the insurance companies" to mean without the defendant's involvement.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiffs' action was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiffs, DK Manufacturing Group Ltd. and S.G. Investments Group Ltd., sought insurance proceeds and damages for bad faith from Co-operators General Insurance Company following a fire and water damage incident.

Co-operators brought a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the claims for insurance monies were resolved by a binding appraisal process and that a one-year contractual limitation period barred other claims.

The court found that Form AB, containing contractual statutory conditions including a one-year limitation period and appraisal process, applied to both policies.

The appraisal awards were binding, dismissing claims for further insurance monies.

However, the one-year contractual limitation period did not apply to the extra-contractual bad faith claims, which are governed by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.