J. Sebastian Winny

The defendant insurer brought a motion to have the quantum of the plaintiff's property loss claim determined by the appraisal process under the Insurance Act, rather than by the court.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the request was too late and would improperly bifurcate the trial, as the action also included claims for bad faith and punitive damages.

The court granted the motion in part, holding that the appraisal process is mandatory under the Insurance Act for determining the quantum of loss, regardless of the delay or the presence of other claims in the action.

The claims for recovery under the policy were stayed pending the appraisal.

The plaintiff, T.I., brought an action against Velibor Boro Lakovic and United Taxi Limited for damages arising from an alleged sexual assault by Lakovic, a taxi driver.

United Taxi brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against it, arguing no genuine issue for trial regarding direct negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, or vicarious liability.

T.I. brought a cross-motion for leave to amend her Statement of Claim to add Dusan Tosic, the owner of the taxi, as a defendant.

The court granted United Taxi's motion for summary judgment, finding no basis for liability against it, particularly regarding vicarious liability as the alleged assault was a random act not strongly connected to United Taxi's enterprise.

The court also granted T.I.'s motion to add Dusan Tosic as a defendant, finding the proposed claims tenable and not an abuse of process.

Purchasers repudiated an agreement of purchase and sale for a newly constructed custom home before completion and sought return of their deposit.

The vendor builder accepted the repudiation, completed construction with design changes, and later sold the property to another purchaser at a lower price after a lengthy marketing period.

The court held that damages for breach of contract are determined using the expectation measure, placing the innocent party in the position it would have occupied had the contract been performed.

The purchasers failed to prove that the builder acted unreasonably in mitigating its losses by completing construction and marketing the home.

Judgment was granted on the builder’s counterclaim for damages including carrying costs, financing costs, commission, and price differential.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim after the action had already been set down for trial.

The proposed amendments added specific legal characterizations of alleged wrongdoing, including fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation, deceit, intentional interference with economic relations, and unjust enrichment, and also sought additional remedies such as disgorgement of profits.

The court held that Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure permits amendments at any stage of the proceeding unless non-compensable prejudice would result.

The amendments did not introduce new causes of action but merely particularized existing allegations and clarified available remedies arising from the same factual matrix.

As no non-compensable prejudice would arise, leave to amend was granted.

Following a motion in which the plaintiff unsuccessfully sought to add a non-party individual as a defendant and obtain immediate judgment against him, the court determined the appropriate costs disposition.

The non-party sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the motion was ill-conceived and lacked a pleaded claim.

The court held that although the motion lacked merit, the circumstances did not justify substantial indemnity costs.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the non-party, payable by the plaintiff, while the plaintiff was separately awarded substantial indemnity costs against the corporate defendant after succeeding on a summary judgment motion following the defendant being noted in default.