John W. Bruggeman

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent regarding a loan facility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge properly relied on the documentary record, which contradicted the appellants' vague assertions.

The Court held that the summary judgment test from Combined Air was met, as a full appreciation of the evidence could be achieved, and declined to draw an adverse inference against the respondent regarding its choice of affiant.

The appellant sought to challenge an order requiring her to pay security for costs, failing which her appeal was stayed.

She failed to bring a motion to set aside or vary the order within the required time.

The Divisional Court refused to grant an extension of time, finding no apparent merit to the proposed motion or the underlying appeal, and noting substantial prejudice to the respondent due to the appellant's abusive litigation conduct.

The motion was dismissed and the stay of the appeal continued.

The appellant appealed an order requiring him to pass accounts as guardian of property, arguing that leave was required but not sought or granted.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that leave was implicitly granted by the motion judge based on the respondent's position as a beneficiary and trustee under the will.

The court also declined to interfere with the scope of the order or the costs awarded below.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her claim for intentional infliction of mental or emotional harm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no genuine issue for trial because the appellant failed to produce any evidence of harm or illness, which is an essential element of the tort, over the eight years the matter had been outstanding.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order finding them in contempt of court for breaching a Mareva injunction and imposing a $150,000 fine payable to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the contempt finding and the substantial indemnity costs award of $57,000.

However, the Court held that a fine for civil contempt is an offence against the administration of justice and must be paid to the Crown, not the opposing party.

The fine was reduced to $10,000 and ordered payable to the Provincial Treasurer.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict dismissing her medical malpractice claims against the respondent doctor, who inadvertently punctured her radial artery while attempting to aspirate a ganglion cyst.

The appellant argued the jury's verdict and nil damages assessment were unreasonable, and that the trial judge misdirected the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury was entitled to reject the appellant's evidence and conclude the doctor met the standard of care for informed consent.

The court also found no reviewable errors in the trial judge's jury charge and held that the standard practice for removing a ganglion cyst is not fraught with obvious risks.

In a motor vehicle tort action, the appellant sought an order compelling his automobile insurer to fund and provide an independent defence after the insurer denied coverage on the basis of alleged policy and statutory breaches, including conduct surrounding impaired driving and failure to report the accident.

The court held that no immutable rule should govern whether the duty to defend is suspended where breach of condition is alleged; the issue must be resolved contextually, having regard to the strength of the parties' positions and the need to furnish a separate defence.

On the facts, the alleged breaches were clear and uncontested, no evidentiary basis was advanced for estoppel or relief from forfeiture, and the insurer had already been added as a statutory third party under s. 258(14) of the Insurance Act and was defending liability and quantum in terms aligned with the insured's interests.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.