Jeffrey Brown

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the City of Thunder Bay for negligence and private nuisance, alleging that the City's addition of sodium hydroxide to the municipal water supply caused pinhole leaks in copper plumbing pipes, resulting in property damage.

The City brought a cross-motion to strike the nuisance claim, arguing it was barred by s. 449 of the Municipal Act, 2001, which provides immunity for nuisance claims connected to the escape of water from water works.

The court granted the City's motion to strike the nuisance claim, finding it was plainly and obviously barred by the statute.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion to certify the negligence claim, finding it met all the criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

At a case management conference in a class proceeding, certain defendants requested a timetable for a motion to dismiss the action for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The plaintiffs sought to file material, conduct written interrogatories, or summons witnesses to explore why other defendants took no position on the motion.

The court denied the plaintiffs' request for interrogatories and cross-examinations, finding them unnecessary, irrelevant, and likely to breach privilege.

Exercising its case management powers under s. 12, the court directed the motion to proceed in writing without cross-examinations and set a timetable.

The applicant insurer sought a declaration that three other insurers had a duty to defend a construction company in an action for damages resulting from an allegedly defective mechanical system.

One insurer, AIG, denied a duty to defend based on faulty workmanship and loss of use exclusions.

The court found that the allegations in the statement of claim regarding consequential damage and loss of use were sufficiently broad to raise the possibility of coverage, triggering AIG's duty to defend.

The court further held that the defence costs should be allocated among the insurers on a 'time on risk' basis, rather than equally, and that a self-insured retention clause did not alter one insurer's obligation to contribute to defence costs at this stage.

The applicant sought to set aside an arbitration award, alleging the arbitrator breached the rules of natural justice and exceeded his jurisdiction.

The applicant argued the arbitrator unfairly denied an adjournment, admitted new expert evidence, altered the definition of disputed software, and improperly relied on a draft award provided by the respondent.

The applicant also contended the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief against non-parties.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no procedural unfairness or jurisdictional error, and ordered the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award.

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.