Kelly Fitzpatrick

The plaintiff sued the defendant telecommunications company after tripping over an unburied cable installed at her residence.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment against its third-party installation subcontractor, seeking full indemnity for damages and defence costs based on a contractual indemnity clause.

The court found that while the subcontractor had complied with its obligation to obtain insurance, the pleadings included allegations of negligent cable placement that fell within the scope of the indemnity provision.

The court ordered the third party to pay 50% of the defendant's past and future defence costs, but held that determining indemnity for damages was premature.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend a defence medical examination with an orthopedic surgeon without an audio recording.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the examination should be recorded due to the expert's alleged bias and past adverse judicial findings against him.

The court applied the test from Bellamy v. Johnson, finding the plaintiff failed to show substantial and compelling reasons to order a recording.

The court held that general allegations of bias or the fact that an expert primarily conducts defence assessments do not justify recording the examination.

The motion was granted.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing a civil action, the defendant sought costs for both the motion and the action.

The court considered s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the principles of indemnification, encouragement of settlement, and deterrence of improper litigation conduct.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented, challenged aspects of the claimed costs but did not provide persuasive grounds to reduce them.

The court found the claimed fees modest given the complexity and seriousness of the allegations, which included claims of misconduct by a police officer and damages of $1,000,000.

Costs were awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought declarations that a snow removal contractor and its insurer were required to defend and indemnify it in an underlying slip-and-fall action.

The applicant had contracted with the contractor to perform snow clearing and ice control services and required the contractor to obtain liability insurance naming the applicant as an additional insured and to indemnify it for claims arising from the contractor’s operations.

After a pedestrian allegedly slipped and fell on ice in a parking lot, the contractor and insurer refused to assume the applicant’s defence.

The court held that the true nature of the underlying claim was negligence arising from snow and ice removal, which fell within the contractor’s contractual responsibilities and the insurer’s coverage.

The insurer therefore had a duty to defend the entire action and both the contractor and insurer were required to indemnify the applicant for liability attributable to the contractor.