Joel Cormier

Following a motor vehicle accident trial where the plaintiffs' claims were effectively dismissed after a threshold motion, the defendants sought costs of $275,259.55 on a partial and substantial indemnity basis.

The court held that Rule 49.10 did not apply since the action was dismissed, and substantial indemnity costs were not warranted as there was no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiffs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants, reduced by 20 percent to account for the principal plaintiff's financial hardship.

No costs were awarded against the derivative Family Law Act claimant.

The plaintiff sued the tenants and the landlord of a residential property after slipping and falling on an allegedly icy porch.

The tenant defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and the landlord's crossclaim against them, arguing the landlord was solely responsible for snow and ice maintenance under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The plaintiff did not participate in the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not an appropriate case for partial summary judgment as the plaintiff's allegations went beyond ice and snow, and the moving parties failed to discharge their evidentiary burden to show there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiffs brought a Rule 21 motion to determine the effect of a Pierringer Agreement and a prior court order on the remaining claims against the non-settling defendant and subsequent third and fourth parties.

The court clarified that the prior order restricted the plaintiffs' claim against the remaining defendant to several liability, but did not affect the remaining defendant's ability to pursue contribution from third parties.

The motion was resolved with all parties ultimately agreeing on this interpretation, and costs were deferred to the pre-trial or trial judge.

The defendant consented to the dismissal of its third party claim against the engineering firm before a summary judgment motion was heard.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The defendant argued the third party's costs should be reduced because the lawyers' time was split between two related actions and the summary judgment motion did not proceed.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the third party's methodology of equally dividing costs between the two actions was acceptable and the time spent on factum preparation was reasonable.

The court awarded the third party costs of $33,984.79 on a partial indemnity scale.

A plumber used an open flame torch to repair a leaking pipe in the basement of a heritage mansion.

Shortly after the repair was completed, a massive fire broke out, destroying the house.

The property owner and the condominium corporation's insurers brought a subrogated negligence claim against the plumbing company.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove causation, as there was no evidence the downward-directed flame ignited combustibles in the adjacent joist space.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to establish a breach of the standard of care because they did not call expert evidence on the standard expected of a reasonably prudent plumber performing soldering work.

The moving party, a third-party property manager, sought summary judgment to dismiss claims for contribution and indemnity brought by the defendant plumbing company.

The defendant had settled property damage claims with the plaintiff tenants following a flooding incident.

The third party sought to amend its pleadings to rely on a limitation of liability clause in the commercial leases, which barred claims against the landlord and persons for whom the landlord is legally responsible.

The court allowed the amendment, finding no non-compensable prejudice.

The court then interpreted the lease and concluded that the third party, as the operator of the building automation system, fell within the category of persons for whom the landlord was legally responsible.

Because the plaintiffs were barred from suing the third party directly, the defendant could not claim contribution and indemnity.

The motion for summary judgment was granted.

The insurer brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of an action for indemnity under uninsured and family protection coverage following a motor vehicle accident involving an uninsured driver.

The insurer argued the action was statute‑barred and that the insureds failed to comply with the 30‑day notice requirement under Ontario Regulation 676.

The court held that the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 applied and began when the insured demanded indemnification from the insurer, consistent with appellate authority governing OPCF 44R claims.

The court further found the insureds’ late notice constituted imperfect compliance and granted relief from forfeiture under the Insurance Act and Courts of Justice Act, noting minimal prejudice to the insurer and significant disparity between the breach and the loss of coverage.

The insurer’s summary judgment motion was dismissed.

The moving parties sought summary judgment dismissing third party claims and cross‑claims arising from flood damage in a Toronto office tower allegedly caused by a plumbing failure and monitoring issues with a building automation system.

The responding parties alleged that the moving parties, as building owner or property manager, were liable in contribution and indemnity or owed independent duties in tort.

The court found the claims were premised on factual errors regarding corporate roles and ownership, and that the property manager was protected by a limitation of liability clause in the tenants’ leases that barred claims for contribution or indemnity.

The responding parties produced no evidence establishing a genuine issue for trial, and a proposed amendment to plead an independent tort was unsupported and limitation‑barred.

Summary judgment was therefore granted dismissing the claims against the moving parties and the motion to amend was refused.