Jeffrey Jordan Pausa Hernaez

The plaintiffs, having successfully obtained summary judgment against the defendant insurer for coverage, sought full indemnity costs.

The court granted full indemnity costs, finding that insurance companies wrongfully denying coverage should fully compensate successful parties for enforcing that coverage, citing the unique nature of insurance contracts.

The court also found the hourly rates of plaintiffs' counsel to be reasonable and awarded $72,000 in costs.

The plaintiffs, a minor and his litigation guardian, sought summary judgment against the defendant insurer to enforce a prior jury award for negligence against the minor's father, who was insured by the defendant.

The insurer denied coverage, arguing the negligence did not arise from the use or operation of a motor vehicle and brought a cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court found the jury's particularization of negligence (unsafe unloading area) established a clear nexus between the father's use of the vehicle and the child's injuries, distinguishing it from cases of mere incidental use.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding the insurer liable for damages and costs.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought to enforce a personal guarantee against Sunny Bhasin, a director of Surje & Company Inc., for a corporate line of credit.

Default judgment had already been granted against the corporate defendant.

Bhasin argued that he was misled into signing the personal guarantee, claiming misrepresentation and non est factum.

The court found no misrepresentation by the Bank's employees, noting that the signed agreements clearly indicated personal liability and that Bhasin, a well-educated businessman, was careless in not reading the documents.

The court granted judgment in favour of RBC, enforcing the personal guarantee.

The appellant motorcyclist was rendered paraplegic after colliding with the respondent's recycling truck, which was making a left turn.

A jury found the appellant 100% responsible for the accident.

On appeal, the appellant argued the verdict was unreasonable and that expert evidence was improperly adduced during cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury's verdict was not so plainly unreasonable that no jury could have reached it, and that the expert evidence elicited on cross-examination was not outside the witnesses' expertise.

The appellant sued her landlord for negligence after suffering serious personal injuries from a fall on a fire escape, alleging it was not kept free of ice and snow.

The trial judge dismissed the action, accepting the superintendent's evidence of daily inspections and finding no snow or ice was present, while rejecting the appellant's evidence on credibility grounds.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence and erred in credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the record and there was no basis to interfere with the finding that the standard of care was met.