Jaye E. Hooper

The appellant appealed an interlocutory order dismissing his motion for partial summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's decision involved questions of mixed fact and law and was entitled to deference.

The court held that the motion judge appropriately considered the factual disputes and the necessity of a trial for other issues, such as mental distress and defamation, and found no palpable and overriding error.

The insured applied for a declaration that his automobile insurer owed him a defence and indemnity after denying coverage on the basis that he permitted an unauthorized driver to operate his vehicle contrary to statutory condition 4(1) under O. Reg. 777/93 and the Ontario Automobile Policy.

The driver, the insured’s girlfriend, possessed only a G1 licence and was involved in a collision while driving alone on a 400‑series highway.

The court held that the proper test was whether the insured took reasonable and prudent precautions to ensure the statutory condition was not contravened.

Given that the insured had seen the driver produce a licence for identification and had previously ridden with her while she drove, and given the visual similarity between G1 and full licences, the insured acted reasonably and was not wilfully blind.

The insurer therefore remained obligated to provide defence and indemnity.

Following dismissal of a civil action arising from a business relationship dispute, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing that the plaintiff advanced shifting legal theories and made a late allegation of fraud that was not proven.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the consequences of a rejected Rule 49 offer to settle.

Although unfounded fraud allegations can justify substantial indemnity costs for the entire proceeding, the court found the late fraud allegation was more a misguided attempt than bad faith litigation conduct.

The court therefore declined to award substantial indemnity costs for the entire action but applied the usual Rule 49 consequences.

Costs were fixed as partial indemnity up to the offer date and substantial indemnity thereafter.

Following dismissal of a motion for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation over commercial property, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The responding party sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $28,900 after incurring roughly $40,000 responding to the motion.

The court held that interlocutory motion costs should compensate for work specifically related to the motion rather than all investigative or merits-based preparation that may also serve the underlying action.

Applying the factors in Rules 57.01 and 57.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court fixed costs at $20,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The award was payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking production of the Crown brief and police investigation file from a criminal prosecution arising from a motor vehicle accident that caused the death of the plaintiff’s father.

Liability for the accident had been admitted, but damages remained in dispute.

The plaintiff argued the materials were relevant to aggravating circumstances affecting psychological injury damages, including allegations the defendant was texting while driving.

Applying the third‑party production test and factors articulated by the Court of Appeal, the court held the requested materials were reasonably likely to contain information probative of damages and that it would be unfair to require the plaintiff to proceed without access to them.

Given the Crown’s consent and the potential evidentiary relevance, production was ordered.

The plaintiff purchaser brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) under s. 103 of the Courts of Justice Act in an action seeking specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for four residential apartment buildings.

The court assessed whether the plaintiff had a reasonable claim to an interest in land and whether equitable considerations justified granting the CPL.

After reviewing extensive documentary evidence and cross‑examinations, the court found the plaintiff’s case for specific performance weak, particularly due to the failure to waive conditions within the contractual deadline and the absence of clear evidence that the conditional period had been extended.

The court also held that damages would likely be an adequate remedy because the transaction was a commercial investment acquisition rather than a uniquely valuable property.

Exercising its discretion, the court refused the CPL while granting leave to amend the claim to add damages and ordering notice of any sale, transfer, or refinancing of the property during the litigation.

The plaintiff alleged that he was induced to leave secure employment by fraudulent misrepresentations that he would become a partner in a siding installation business and share profits.

During trial the theory shifted to deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation, with the plaintiff claiming the defendants planned from the outset to terminate him after he secured new builder clients.

The court held the evidence did not support allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or a partnership agreement.

The plaintiff was engaged as a commissioned salesperson entitled to a percentage of profits from business he personally generated.

Claims based on unjust enrichment also failed because obtaining new business was precisely the work for which the plaintiff was paid.

Supplementary reasons addressing an outstanding refusal arising from an examination for discovery in a civil action involving a leased vehicle.

The disputed question asked how profit was calculated by the dealership on a leased vehicle.

The court held that while the exact profit earned by the dealership was not directly relevant, the method of calculating profit was relevant to issues concerning ownership, control of the vehicle, and the financial relationships among the dealer, financing company, and manufacturer.

Given the surrounding evidence about the assignment of the lease and payments made, the answer was necessary to understand prior discovery evidence and documents produced.

The witness was therefore required to answer the question regarding how profit is calculated.

The appellant life insurance company appealed a trial judgment awarding its former agent damages for breach of fiduciary duty, punitive damages, and vested renewal commissions following his termination.

The trial judge found the appellant breached its fiduciary duty by freezing the agent's vested commission account and acted in bad faith in its post-termination conduct.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on the vested commissions, the breach of fiduciary duty, the punitive damages award, and the dismissal of the appellant's counterclaim.

However, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal regarding the trial judge's award of a risk premium on costs, holding that the amended Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not permit a risk premium to be awarded against an unsuccessful party.

The victim was shot by a hunter who had stopped his truck, left the engine running, and negligently fired at what he thought was a deer.

The victim sought to recover damages from the hunter's automobile insurer under s. 239(1) of the Insurance Act, arguing the injuries arose directly or indirectly from the use or operation of the vehicle.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the shooting was an act independent of the use or operation of the truck, breaking the chain of causation.

The insurer's appeal was allowed, and the claim against the insurer was dismissed.

The appellants were injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an impaired driver who had just left a BYOB house party hosted by the respondents.

The appellants sued the social hosts, arguing they owed a duty of care to third-party users of the highway.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that social hosts do not owe a duty of care to members of the public who may be injured by an intoxicated guest's conduct, unless the host's conduct implicates them in the creation or exacerbation of the risk.

The Court found that the injury was not reasonably foreseeable and that there was no positive duty to act.

The appellant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an impaired driver who had just left a BYOB party hosted by the respondents.

The appellant sued the driver and the social hosts.

The trial judge found the driver liable but dismissed the action against the social hosts, finding they owed no duty of care for policy reasons.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal against the social hosts, concluding that on the specific facts of this case—where the hosts did not serve the alcohol, did not know how much the driver drank, and did not know he was impaired when he left—no duty of care was owed to third-party users of the road.

The appeal was dismissed as to liability but allowed in part regarding costs.