Jordan Mark Black

The defendant, Northbridge General Insurance Corporation, brought a motion seeking leave to amend its statement of defence to withdraw an admission that it insured the loss vehicle.

The court granted the motion, applying the three-part test for withdrawing an admission.

It found that the proposed amendment raised a triable issue, the admission was inadvertent due to time constraints and incomplete investigation, and the withdrawal would not result in non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff, Nissan Canada Inc., as Nissan was aware of Northbridge's denial of coverage well before the limitation period expired to sue other parties.

The plaintiff, Arnie Augspols, brought an action against G. Bates Plumbing for alleged negligence and against Intact Insurance Co. for denial of coverage for structural damage and excessively high premiums.

The plaintiff's claims against G. Bates Plumbing for faulty inspection and delayed delivery of inspection videos were dismissed, as the company fulfilled its contract and no leak was found.

The claim against Intact for structural damage coverage was dismissed due to clear exclusion clauses in the insurance policy regarding earth movement, settling, wear and tear, and continuous water seepage.

The claim for overcharged premiums against Intact was also dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims.

Despite the defendants' success, the court exercised its discretion not to award costs, particularly against Intact, citing the insurer's poor communication and customer relations which exacerbated the plaintiff's frustration.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for negligence and breach of the Occupiers' Liability Act after falling in a grocery store parking lot.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the action.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff's expert opinion regarding an unexpected curb height lacked factual foundation because the plaintiff did not provide her own affidavit evidence to support the expert's assumptions about her expectations.

The court emphasized the plaintiff's failure to "lead trump" by not filing direct evidence and found the curb was not a hazard.