James R. Morgan

The third-party insurer, United States Liability Insurance Company, brought a summary judgment motion to determine its duty to defend its insureds, Harold Douglas Eakins and Jack-O’s Sports Bar, in a personal injury claim.

The plaintiff alleged over-serving of alcohol, a fall from a barstool, and a subsequent forcible removal and assault by the proprietor.

The insurer relied on broad assault and battery exclusion clauses in its commercial general liability and liquor liability policies, which explicitly included negligence in their definitions of assault and battery.

The court found that the plaintiff's pleadings, even as amended, could not be severed from the factual matrix involving assault or battery as broadly defined in the policy.

Consequently, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing the third-party claim against the insurer, finding no duty to defend.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for an injunction to prevent the defendants from obstructing their access to Lake Erie, asserting rights under the Canadian Navigable Waters Act (CNWA) and common law riparian rights.

They also claimed damages for trespass.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief, finding they lacked standing to enforce the CNWA and that their property did not directly abut Lake Erie in its natural low-water state.

However, the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the trespass claim, awarding $5,000 in damages for the unauthorized clearing of trees and vegetation on their land by the defendants.

The defendants' counterclaim for trespass was not adjudicated due to procedural issues.

The appellant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing an error of law regarding the quantum of rent.

The respondent moved to quash the appeal, asserting the Board member made findings of fact, not law, which are not reviewable on appeal.

The court, applying principles distinguishing questions of law from fact, determined that the Board's decision on the agreed rental amount was a factual finding.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction as it did not raise an extricable question of law.