Karyn Shapira

The appellant school boards appealed an arbitral award that dismissed their claim for a proportionate share of the respondent insurance exchange's Guarantee Fund upon terminating their memberships.

The court upheld the arbitrator's interpretation of the Reciprocal Agreement, finding that section 7 clearly extinguished a departing subscriber's rights to the fund.

The court also rejected the argument that an implied trust existed outside the contract.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

During a trial concerning an oil spill, the plaintiff sought to admit an expert witness, Michael Flynn, retained by their insurer.

The defendant objected, arguing Flynn did not qualify as a participant expert and his report was non-compliant with Rule 53.03.

The court ruled that Flynn was not a participant expert as he was engaged by a party to the litigation and his opinions were not based on personal observation or participation in the events.

However, the court granted leave under Rule 53.08 to admit his report and allow him to testify as a Rule 53 expert, finding a reasonable explanation for the non-compliance and no prejudice to the defendant.

The court qualified Flynn to provide expert opinion on the origin and cause of the oil spill, Microbial Influenced Corrosion (MIC) generally, and compliance with codes and regulations for heating appliances and fuel suppliers.

He was not permitted to testify on the standard of care applicable to an Oil Burner Technician (OBT), adhering to the "specialist to specialist" rule for such opinions.

The applicants, Toronto District School Board and Simcoe County District School Board, sought leave to appeal an arbitration decision that dismissed their claim for a share of a guarantee fund upon terminating their membership in the Ontario School Boards’ Insurance Exchange (OSBIE).

The court granted leave to appeal, determining that the interpretation of the standard form Reciprocal Insurance Exchange Agreement constituted a question of law, which is subject to correctness review and of precedential value, thus satisfying the criteria for granting leave under the Arbitration Act.

The plaintiffs, who suffered catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident, brought a motion to strike the jury notice due to the suspension of civil jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to adjourn the trial because the pandemic interfered with their ability to obtain responding medical reports.

The court granted the adjournment for six months to allow the defendants to obtain their medical assessments.

However, the court also struck the jury notice, finding that the indefinite delay of jury trials would cause undue financial prejudice to the plaintiffs, whose accident benefits were nearly exhausted.

The applicant developer brought an application seeking a declaration that the respondent mechanical trade contractor was contractually required to defend and indemnify it in an underlying construction defect action regarding a condominium project.

The court distinguished the duty to defend in a commercial construction contract from that in an insurance policy, noting the indemnification clause was drafted by the developer and must be interpreted strictly against it (contra proferentem).

The court dismissed the application against the contractor's parent company but ordered the contracting subsidiary to pay 33.33% of the developer's reasonable legal fees in the underlying action, reflecting its limited obligation.

The parties brought competing motions for summary judgment arising from an oil spill at a residential property allegedly caused when falling ice and debris severed an outdoor fuel oil line connected to a tank installed by one defendant and later visually inspected by another.

The plaintiff alleged negligent installation and inspection in breach of regulatory standards requiring protection of fuel lines from physical damage.

The defendants argued the event was unforeseeable and resulted from the collapse of building components for which the homeowner was responsible.

The court held that the case involved conflicting expert opinions regarding the standard of care and causation.

Applying the “full appreciation test” articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court concluded that the dispute required the trial process to properly evaluate the competing expert evidence.

The parties brought competing motions for summary judgment arising from an oil spill at a residential property allegedly caused when falling ice and debris severed an outdoor fuel oil line connected to a tank installed by one defendant and later visually inspected by another.

The plaintiff alleged negligent installation and inspection in breach of regulatory standards requiring protection of fuel lines from physical damage.

The defendants argued the event was unforeseeable and resulted from the collapse of building components for which the homeowner was responsible.

The court held that the case involved conflicting expert opinions regarding the standard of care and causation.

Applying the “full appreciation test” articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court concluded that the dispute required the trial process to properly evaluate the competing expert evidence.