Jeffrey A. Brown

The plaintiff, IPEX Inc., settled numerous class actions related to its defective Kitec Pipe.

IPEX then sued its resin suppliers, AT Plastics Inc. and Lubrizol Advanced Materials Inc., for breach of contract and indemnity, seeking to recover the settlement amount.

The defendant suppliers brought motions for partial summary judgment, arguing that IPEX could not prove causation without individual claims data.

The court dismissed the defendants' motions, finding that IPEX could plausibly establish causation for its breach of contract claim without individual data, and that the tort claim should proceed to trial alongside the contract claim to avoid bifurcation and inconsistent findings.

The court also found that the reasonableness of the settlement and the assignment argument were not suitable for summary judgment.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its motion to compel the respondent to seek answers and documents from its non-party insurers regarding their participation in a class action settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the request was overbroad and tantamount to requiring an affidavit of documents from a non-party.

The court held that the proper procedure for seeking such extensive production from non-parties is a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant, AT Plastics Inc., sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing its appeal of a Master's discovery ruling.

The Master had ruled that the plaintiff, IPEX Inc., was not required to answer certain questions or produce documents regarding its insurers' involvement in a prior $125 million class action settlement.

The court found reason to doubt the correctness of the decision, noting that the private insurance exception may have been incorrectly applied as a complete bar to obtaining relevant information from the insurers.

Finding the issue to be of general importance, the court granted leave to appeal.

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 appellant onion growers suffered significant crop losses due to onion maggots and sued the manufacturer and seller of the insecticide Dyfonate for breach of warranty and negligence.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that the crop failure was caused by unusually cool and dry environmental conditions that delayed the emergence of the maggots, rather than a defect in the insecticide.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's factual findings and concluded that the respondents provided no express or implied warranties regarding the insecticide's effectiveness under those unusual conditions, nor were they negligent.

The appellants appealed a judgment regarding the repossession of a vehicle by the respondent.

The appellants argued the repossession violated the Personal Property Security Act and the Consumer Protection Act, and that a clause in the retail instalment contract was void.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the repossession was lawfully based on the respondent's good faith belief that the vehicle was in jeopardy, rather than a default in payment, rendering the statutory provisions inapplicable.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice in a CCAA proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the motion judge, and awarded costs of $10,000 to the respondents.