John Leonard Bonnar Lloyd

The respondents purchased a property in 2021 and discovered significant foundation defects in a dwelling constructed between 1986 and 1987.

They sued the appellant municipality in 2022 for negligent supervision of the construction.

The motion judge dismissed the municipality's summary judgment motion, finding that the municipality had an ongoing duty to monitor the open building permit, which constituted a continuous omission tolling the 15-year ultimate limitation period under s. 15(6)(a) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a continuous act or omission requires successive or repetitive actionable conduct, which was absent here.

The claim was therefore statute-barred by the ultimate limitation period.

The Court also noted the motion judge erred in recognizing a novel duty to monitor without conducting an Anns/Cooper analysis.

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim under rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs, a home builder and its principal, alleged various torts and statutory breaches against Tarion Warranty Corporation, several municipalities, CTV News, and a public health authority, claiming hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

The court found the 40-page statement of claim to be unwieldy, repetitive, and deficient in pleading the necessary material facts for the alleged causes of action.

The court struck the statement of claim in its entirety, dismissing claims based on criminal statutes, the Competition Act, the Security of Information Act, intentional interference with economic relations, discrimination, and harassment without leave to amend.

However, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to move for an order permitting them to deliver a fresh statement of claim restricted to specific causes of action, including injurious falsehood, inducing breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and negligence, provided they can properly plead the required material facts.

The plaintiff in a subrogated action scheduled discoveries and proposed an independent insurance adjuster as its corporate representative.

Days before the scheduled discoveries, the defendants objected and insisted on examining the plaintiff's sole director.

The plaintiff rejected alternate proposals and unilaterally cancelled the discoveries.

Both parties brought motions for costs thrown away.

The court dismissed both the motion and cross-motions, finding that while the defendants should have raised the issue earlier, the plaintiff acted unreasonably in cancelling the discoveries.

At a pre-trial conference for a construction dispute, the parties agreed to vacate the scheduled trial dates and establish a protocol for a joint site inspection.

The inspection will involve representatives from various engineering and consulting firms to determine structural deficiencies, remediation methods, and costs.

The court issued a consent order detailing the inspection process, deadlines for expert reports, and scheduled a further pre-trial conference.

The appellant, an Ontario mining company, sued American engineering consultants for negligent misrepresentation regarding studies for a Costa Rican gold mine.

The defendants successfully moved to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the tort of negligent misrepresentation was committed in Ontario, as the studies were received and relied upon at the appellant's Toronto head office.

This established a presumptive real and substantial connection that the defendants failed to rebut.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to determine forum non conveniens.

An Ontario mining company sued numerous foreign engineering firms and engineers for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract following a landslide that closed a gold mine in Costa Rica.

The moving defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the Ontario court.

Applying the framework from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court considered whether presumptive connecting factors established a real and substantial connection with Ontario.

The court held that neither alleged reliance on advice in Ontario, damages suffered in Ontario, nor business connections through related companies established sufficient jurisdictional ties.

Any connection to Ontario was tenuous, as the engineering services, alleged wrongdoing, and resulting physical damage occurred primarily in Costa Rica and the United States.

The court concluded that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter and therefore declined to assume jurisdiction over the moving defendants.

An employee of the appellant's subsidiary was injured at work and settled a claim for $1,350,000.

The appellant sued its excess insurer for the $350,000 amount above its primary coverage.

The appellant argued the umbrella policy provided 'claims made' coverage, while the insurer argued an endorsement limited it to an 'occurrence' basis.

The trial judge found the endorsement superseded the general policy provisions and required an occurrence during the policy period.

The Court of Appeal upheld this interpretation, finding the endorsement operated as a coverage trigger rather than an exclusion, and dismissed the appeal.