5 total
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs in the cause.
The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision dated April 1, 2025.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of the motion to be determined in the cause by the assessment officer.
Insurer successfully relied on motorized vehicle exclusion to deny coverage for fire caused by tenant's car repairs.
The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in their direct action against the defendant insurer under s. 132(1) of the Insurance Act.
The plaintiffs had previously obtained a consent judgment against their tenant, who negligently caused a fire while repairing his automobile in the attached garage.
The defendant insurer denied coverage under the tenant's policy, relying on a motorized vehicle exclusion.
The court found that the omnibus exclusions, including the motorized vehicle exclusion, applied to the Tenants Legal Liability coverage.
The court also held that the tenant's maintenance of his vehicle constituted 'use' of a motorized vehicle and that there was an unbroken chain of causation between the maintenance and the fire.
The plaintiffs' claim was dismissed.
Successful responding party awarded partial indemnity costs after summary judgment motion dismissed.
Following the dismissal of a summary judgment motion brought by certain defendants, the plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.
The responding defendants did not object to the quantum requested.
The court found the plaintiff’s requested costs reasonable and ordered payment accordingly.
The decision also corrected a typographical error in the court’s earlier reasons for judgment regarding which party amended a statement of defence.
Contractor cannot rely on land lease insurance clause to bar owner’s claim.
Contractors and subcontractors moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a negligence and property damage claim arising from a water leak during mechanical system upgrades to a commercial building.
They argued that a builder’s risk insurance obligation contained in a long‑term land lease between the building owner and its landlord created a subrogation bar protecting them as third‑party beneficiaries.
The court held that the construction contract governing the work contained an “entire agreement” clause and expressly allocated responsibility for builder’s risk insurance to the contractor.
Because the defendants were strangers to the land lease and had neither relied upon nor bargained for its provisions, the lease could not override the later construction contract or confer a defence through the privity exception.
The insurance provision in the land lease therefore did not bar the plaintiff’s action.
Appeal dismissed; tenant limited to insurance recovery for sprinkler leakage despite deductible.
The appellant appealed an order determining a question of law under Rule 21.01(1)(a) regarding the interpretation of a lease.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the tenant could only look to its insurer for loss due to sprinkler leakages, even if the loss was less than the deductible under the insurance policy.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
