John Henry Reiterowski

The appellant appealed from a summary judgment dismissing its claim for insurance coverage under a Builder's Risk Policy.

The motion judge found the roof collapse was caused by frost heaving, an excluded peril under the policy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding summary judgment was appropriate where the respondent's expert evidence was uncontested, the frost or freezing exclusion applied, and the doctrine of nullification did not render the exclusion unenforceable because the policy still covered other perils.

The appellant appealed reassessments for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, challenging the Minister's disallowance of rental losses and legal expenses.

The Tax Court of Canada found that the appellant did not have a source of income from the property, as it was occupied by family members at non-commercial rates and held in trust for his mother.

Consequently, the rental losses and legal expenses incurred to defend title were not deductible.

The appeal was dismissed.

Puri Professional Corporation (Puri PC) sought coverage under an errors and omissions insurance policy from Lloyd’s Underwriters and The Sovereign General Insurance Company (the Insurers) for a client's negligence claim related to tax advice.

The Insurers moved for summary judgment to dismiss Puri PC's claim, arguing the alleged wrongful acts occurred before the policy's retroactive date.

Puri PC brought a cross-motion for summary judgment, seeking a declaration of coverage, arguing a clerical error in the application should be rectified.

The court granted the Insurers' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Puri PC's claim, finding the retroactive date exclusion clearly applied and rectification was not warranted as the alleged acts occurred well before the policy's retroactive date.

The defendant, Lloyd's Underwriters, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action by the plaintiff, 2689686 Ontario Inc., concerning a roof collapse at a property insured under a Builder's Risk policy.

The court found that the loss was caused by frost and heaving, a peril explicitly excluded by the policy.

The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the defendant's expert opinion or establish an exception to the exclusion.

Consequently, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action against Lloyd's Underwriters.

Window Force Inc. brought a motion for summary judgment against TriCity Windows and Doors for breach of contract and unjust enrichment related to unpaid invoices and services.

TriCity counterclaimed for damages due to alleged delays and poor quality of windows.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning the terms of the unwritten contract, the quality of goods, delivery issues, mitigation efforts, and the credibility of witnesses.

The court determined that the evidence was insufficient to make necessary findings of fact and credibility summarily, and that a full trial with viva voce evidence and cross-examinations was required for a fair and just adjudication.

The plaintiffs brought motions seeking a further and better affidavit of documents, a monetary sanction for repeated breaches of court-ordered discovery deadlines and an agreed discovery plan, and an order striking the defendants' responding affidavit.

The court declined to strike the affidavit, holding that even if parts of it engaged settlement privilege concerns, the plaintiffs had not shown the criteria under rule 25.11 were met.

The court granted a further and better affidavit of documents under rule 30.06(b), finding the negotiated discovery plan and the production record established that relevant documents likely existed and had been omitted.

The court also imposed an $8,500 sanction for breaches of court orders and fixed motion costs at $30,000 all inclusive payable to the plaintiffs.

The applicant, Le Congrès Hellénique du Québec (CHQ), sought declarations that the respondent, Canadian Hellenic Congress (CHC), had improperly adopted its 2016 Constitution, invalidly created the Quebec Regional Council (QRC), and conducted void 2016 elections.

The court found that the 2016 Constitution was not properly adopted due to significant procedural defects and non-compliance with the 1999 Constitution's amendment procedures, which constituted a breach of contractual obligations to its constituent organizations.

The QRC was also declared improperly created as a provincial organization already existed in Quebec and no valid by-law was passed for its establishment.

While irregularities in the 2016 elections were noted, the court declined to nullify them due to lack of specific evidence impacting the result and the impracticability of the requested relief.

Certain provisions of the 2016 Constitution were declared of no force or effect until properly amended, with the corresponding 1999 Constitution provisions applying in the interim.

The applicant, a former officer of a municipally-owned utility corporation, sought indemnity and advancement of legal costs for his participation in a judicial inquiry investigating the sale of the utility's shares.

The respondent corporation denied the request, arguing the inquiry was not a proceeding that triggered the indemnity bylaw and that allegations of possible misconduct precluded advancement.

The court held that the inquiry was a proceeding under the bylaw and that section 136 of the Business Corporations Act provided discretionary authority to order advancement of costs.

The court ordered the respondent to advance the applicant's legal costs for the ongoing phase of the inquiry, subject to repayment if the applicant is ultimately found not to have acted honestly and in good faith.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant purchaser for unjust enrichment and knowing receipt after the plaintiffs' employee fraudulently pocketed the proceeds from the sale of seven vehicles.

The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding that the valid contracts of sale constituted a juristic reason for the enrichment.

The knowing receipt claim was also dismissed because the defendant paid fair market value, made reasonable inquiries regarding the unusual payment methods, and was not willfully blind to the employee's fraud.