Joseph Rucci

The defendant insurance company brought a motion to quash a summons to examine an employee (an insurance adjuster) for a pending motion to compel answers to discovery refusals and to deliver a further and better affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff sought to examine the adjuster to test the relevance and proportionality of the defendant's broad production requests spanning forty years of documents related to historical sexual abuse claims.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the proposed examination was relevant to the underlying motion, necessary for fair adjudication, and not an abuse of process.

A personal injury action arising from a 12-year-old plaintiff leaping from a balcony in community housing after an intruder forced his way into her apartment.

The defendants moved to strike portions of the statement of claim and to compel further production of documents.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the pleadings relevant to establishing foreseeability and duty of care.

The court granted the motion for further affidavits of documents but directed the parties to engage in collaborative discovery planning under Rule 29.1 before compliance.

No costs awarded due to divided success.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed an appeal, reversing a Divisional Court decision that had quashed an umpire's assessment of actual cash value (ACV) for a fire-damaged business premises under section 128 of the Insurance Act.

The Court found that the Divisional Court erred by giving undue weight to market value and by failing to defer to the umpire's reasonable assessment.

It clarified that "actual value" means the value to the insured, which can exceed market value, and that repair estimates are relevant to ACV.

The umpire's pragmatic approach in choosing between parties' proposed ACV amounts was upheld as non-arbitrary, reinforcing the deferential standard of review for such appraisals.

The plaintiffs, representing Ottawa taxi plate holders and brokers, brought a class action against the City of Ottawa for its response to Uber's entry into the local market in 2014.

The court found that the City owed a duty of care to the taxi industry based on a long-standing, collaborative relationship and was negligent in failing to enforce its 2012 taxi by-law against Uber.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims that the City's actions violated section 15 of the Charter or the Human Rights Code, finding no disproportionate discriminatory impact based on race or immigrant status.

The court also dismissed the claim that the City's taxi licensing fees constituted an unlawful tax, finding a reasonable nexus between the fees and the cost of services provided.