4 total
The Court of Appeal upheld a jury verdict finding a developer liable for injuries caused by a blown-over sign, clarifying that apportionment of liability must be based on fault rather than causation.
The appellants, a condominium developer and related entities, appealed a jury verdict awarding damages to the respondents for injuries sustained when an A-frame sign placed on a downtown Toronto sidewalk struck the plaintiff in the face during windy conditions.
The jury found both the developer and the sign contractor liable, apportioning fault 94% to the developer and 6% to the contractor.
The appellants challenged the trial judge's instructions on duty of care, apportionment of liability, and foreseeability.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no material misdirection warranting intervention.
The cross-appellant's challenge to costs awards was also dismissed.
Motion granted compelling plaintiff to fulfill discovery undertakings and attend vocational and physiotherapy assessments.
The defendant hospital brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to satisfy undertakings from examinations for discovery and to attend vocational and physiotherapy assessments.
The plaintiff opposed the assessments, arguing the proposed experts lacked specific medical expertise and the requests were delayed.
The court ordered the plaintiff to urgently fulfill the undertakings and attend the assessments, finding them necessary for trial fairness given the substantial loss of income and future care claims.
Commercial tenant's action against landlord for flood damage barred by lease's insurance and waiver provisions.
The appellant commercial tenant suffered property damage from a flood and sued the respondent landlord for the uninsured balance of its loss.
The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding that the lease required the tenant to maintain all-risks insurance and barred claims against the landlord for property damage.
On appeal, the tenant argued summary judgment was inappropriate, the expired lease terms did not apply, and the landlord retained liability for failing to repair the premises.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that summary judgment is appropriate for waiver of subrogation cases, the overholding tenant remained bound by the lease terms, and the lease shifted the risk of damage from an insured peril to the tenant regardless of the landlord's conduct.
Appeal dismissed; contractual waiver of subrogation precluded the insurer's subrogated claim against project contractors.
The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claims.
The underlying dispute involved a subrogated claim by the appellant's insurer against the respondents, who were contractors on a diamond mine project.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the contracts required the appellant to obtain insurance for the benefit of its contractors and included a waiver of subrogation.
Applying principles of contract interpretation, the court held that the appellant had waived liability for losses covered by the policy, thereby extinguishing the insurer's right of subrogation.
