Justin R. Winch

The plaintiff, Parker Pad & Printing Ltd., sought partial summary judgment against its insurer, Gore Mutual Insurance Company, regarding coverage for water damage caused by significant rainfall.

The property insurance policy excluded "flood" (defined as the rising, breaking out, or overflow of any body of water) and seepage from natural sources through foundations.

The plaintiff also had a flood endorsement with an identical "flood" definition.

The court found that the pooling of rainwater did not constitute a "flood" as restrictively defined in the policy or endorsement, as it was not a pre-existing body of water.

Therefore, the damage was not covered by the flood endorsement and was excluded by the policy's seepage clause.

The motion for partial summary judgment was dismissed.

The appellants sought a declaration that they owned part of an adjoining property through adverse possession.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding that the appellants failed to establish the three-part test for adverse possession: actual possession, intention to exclude the true owner, and effective exclusion.

The appellants' predecessors used the disputed lands only seasonally and intermittently, and failed to demonstrate inconsistent use with the true owner's intended use.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and legal conclusions.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership over a portion of the defendant's adjacent property through adverse possession.

The disputed lands were converted to Land Titles in 2001, requiring the plaintiffs to prove their predecessors in title established adverse possession for a continuous ten-year period prior to that date.

The court dismissed the claim, finding that the predecessors' use of the land was seasonal and intermittent, failing the requirement for constant and continuous actual possession.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the predecessors' use was inconsistent with the intended use of the true owner or that they had the intention to exclude the true owner.

An execution creditor sought an order compelling a mortgagee bank to provide a mortgage discharge statement to permit enforcement of a judgment through a sheriff’s sale of the debtor’s property.

The moving party argued that the Court of Appeal’s decision in Citi Cards Canada Inc. v. Pleasance should not apply because it was decided per incuriam or was distinguishable where the creditor had unsuccessfully attempted to examine the judgment debtors.

The court held it was bound by the Court of Appeal authority, which found that mortgage discharge statements constitute personal information protected by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).

Despite acknowledging significant practical difficulties for judgment creditors enforcing debts, the court concluded the precedent prevented ordering the disclosure.

The motion was therefore dismissed.