7 total
The court granted the defendant insurer leave to amend its statement of defence to withdraw an inadvertent admission of coverage.
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.
Motion for access to defendants' computer hard drives denied due to lack of evidence of intentional deletion.
The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to compel the three defendants to deliver further and better affidavits of documents and to provide access to their computer hard drives to search for relevant documents.
The underlying action involves allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation regarding structural damage to the plaintiff's vehicle following a collision.
The court dismissed the motion against two defendants, finding no evidence that documents were withheld or intentionally deleted.
The motion against the insurer was partially granted, requiring it to produce an event log and an itemized list of documents claimed as privileged, but the request to inspect its hard drive was denied.
Homeowner's claims against plumbing company and insurer dismissed, but successful defendants denied costs.
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.
Summary judgment was granted dismissing a slip and fall claim because the plaintiff failed to provide direct evidence to support her expert's theory.
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.
Appeal dismissed; exculpatory clause in commercial alarm contract barred claim for theft damages.
The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action for damages arising from a jewelry theft after its alarm system allegedly failed.
The motion judge granted summary judgment based on an exculpatory clause in the commercial contract between the parties.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, as there was no misrepresentation inducing the contract and the parties were bound by the ordinary commercial contract.
Costs of successful summary judgment motion fixed at $13,000 after minor reductions for excessive hours.
Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a motion for summary judgment, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $16,314.93.
The plaintiff conceded the defendant's entitlement to costs and the reasonableness of the hourly rates, but disputed the number of hours claimed.
The court found the hours claimed for motion preparation and drafting the bill of costs to be somewhat excessive, and fixed the all-inclusive costs award at $13,000.
Summary judgment granted dismissing jewellery store's claim against security company based on valid exclusion clause.
The defendant security company brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff jewellery store's claim for damages following a theft.
The defendant relied on an exclusion clause in their standard form commercial contract.
The plaintiff argued the clause was unenforceable because its principal had limited English proficiency and the clause was not explained.
Applying the Tercon framework, the court found the exclusion clause was clear, applied to the circumstances, was not unconscionable in a commercial setting, and did not violate public policy.
The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.
