Kevin Charles Bunt

In the context of ongoing CCAA proceedings, the applicants and various equipment financiers reached an impasse regarding the wind-down plan and a proposed going-concern sale of the logistics business.

The applicants sought a monetization order, an increase in the administration charge, and lien regularization, which were unopposed and granted by the court to maintain operations.

Due to significant disputes over the sale and liquidation of assets, the court adjourned the contested motions, including several lift-stay motions brought by creditors, and ordered the parties to attend mandatory mediation before a former Commercial List judge.

Three sets of defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims arising from a 30-vehicle winter highway pileup.

The court granted the motion for one defendant (Seney), finding his vehicle was far removed from the main collision and did not contribute to the plaintiffs' injuries.

However, the court dismissed the motions for the other two defendants (Gill and McCallum), holding that while the case against them was not strong, granting partial summary judgment posed a significant risk of inconsistent verdicts at trial, as a jury could still apportion liability to them for allegedly blocking escape routes.

The applicant sought a declaration that he was an insured under two liability policies and entitled to a defence in an underlying personal injury action.

The underlying action arose when the applicant shot his friend in the eye with a BB gun during a game.

The respondent insurers denied coverage based on intentional act exclusions.

The court applied the Scalera framework and found that the applicant's actions constituted an intentional tort, as he intended to shoot and cause some level of injury to the victim.

The court held that the negligence claims were entirely derivative of the intentional act, and therefore the exclusion clauses applied.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant brought a second motion for summary judgment to dismiss the derivative Family Law Act claim of the severely injured plaintiff's father.

The main action, brought on behalf of the injured plaintiff, had been settled for a nuisance value and dismissed because there was no evidence of negligence by anyone other than the injured plaintiff himself.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, holding that a derivative claim under the Family Law Act cannot survive the dismissal of the main action.

No costs were awarded against the self-represented father.

The plaintiffs in two related actions arising from a motor vehicle accident sought to add a new defendant, the host of a wedding reception, after the presumptive two-year limitation period had expired.

The proposed defendant resisted the motion, arguing the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of his potential liability earlier.

The court granted the motion to add the defendant, holding that the issue of discoverability should be determined on a proper evidentiary record at trial rather than at the pleadings stage, and noted the proposed defendant could plead the limitation period as an affirmative defence.

Supplementary reasons addressing an outstanding refusal arising from an examination for discovery in a civil action involving a leased vehicle.

The disputed question asked how profit was calculated by the dealership on a leased vehicle.

The court held that while the exact profit earned by the dealership was not directly relevant, the method of calculating profit was relevant to issues concerning ownership, control of the vehicle, and the financial relationships among the dealer, financing company, and manufacturer.

Given the surrounding evidence about the assignment of the lease and payments made, the answer was necessary to understand prior discovery evidence and documents produced.

The witness was therefore required to answer the question regarding how profit is calculated.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and elected to receive education benefits instead of income replacement benefits.

She later sought to change her election, arguing the insurer misinformed her about the calculation of income replacement benefits by stating tips could not be included unless declared on her income tax return.

The arbitrator found that while the insurer's advice was incorrect, the applicant did not rely on this misrepresentation when making her election.

The application to re-elect was dismissed.