Jessica Harrison

The defendant plumbing contractor brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a negligence action arising from residential flooding allegedly caused by a defective toilet supply hose installed during construction.

The moving party argued there was no evidence that any breach of the Ontario Building Code or absence of CSA certification caused the loss.

The court held that the plaintiff had adduced sufficient evidence of negligence, including expert evidence regarding a defective component and discovery evidence suggesting inadequate selection and oversight of plumbing parts.

Applying the summary judgment principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin and the causation framework from Clements v. Clements, the court found that a trier of fact could reasonably infer a substantial connection between the contractor’s conduct and the damage.

A genuine issue requiring a trial existed.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendant insurer sought costs.

The plaintiff had advanced unsupported allegations of bad faith, misconduct, and incompetence against the insurer and maintained claims for extra-contractual damages without evidentiary support.

The court held that such unfounded allegations justified an award of substantial indemnity costs to discourage speculative litigation.

However, the court limited substantial indemnity costs to the day of the motion hearing and awarded partial indemnity costs for preparation.

Total costs were fixed at $10,582.75 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

Following a successful motion involving a conflict of laws analysis concerning jurisdiction over an accident that occurred in New York State, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Applying the factors in Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized the complexity of the proceeding and the importance of the issues to the parties.

Although the successful moving party sought over $23,000 in partial indemnity costs, the court found the hours claimed excessive relative to the reasonable expectations of the losing parties.

The court therefore reduced the claim and awarded partial indemnity costs in a significantly lower amount.

Costs were ordered payable jointly by the plaintiff and an opposing defendant insurer.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim for non-earner benefits arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer argued that the claim was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Insurance Act and the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because the benefit had been denied in 2008.

The court held that the insurer’s OCF‑9 constituted a clear refusal of benefits and that the limitation period began running from that denial.

A subsequent change in the law regarding eligibility for non‑earner benefits did not invalidate the earlier denial or revive the limitation period.

Claims for mental distress, bad faith, and negligent misrepresentation were also dismissed due to lack of evidentiary support.

The moving defendants sought dismissal of a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident in Niagara Falls, New York on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter, or alternatively that Ontario was forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, sued the New York drivers as well as her Ontario insurer under underinsured motorist coverage.

Applying the framework from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court held that none of the presumptive connecting factors established a real and substantial connection to Ontario, as the defendants resided in New York and the tort occurred there.

The plaintiff’s insurance contract with an Ontario insurer was characterized as secondary and contingent and insufficient to ground jurisdiction.

The court also declined to invoke the forum of necessity doctrine despite the expiration of the New York limitation period.