Kevin Robert Bridel

In a negligence appeal concerning injuries suffered after minors stole an unlocked vehicle from a commercial garage, the Court addressed whether the garage owner owed a duty of care to the injured passenger.

The majority held that while theft risk was foreseeable, the record did not establish reasonable foreseeability of personal injury from unsafe operation of the stolen vehicle in the specific circumstances.

Applying Anns/Cooper, the majority found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie duty of care and dismissed the claim against the garage owner.

The dissent would have upheld the existing duty category for foreseeable physical injury and maintained liability findings.

Atlant Services, a third party, moved for partial summary judgment against Timberlea Construction and Roofing Ltd., arguing it was an employee of Timberlea or, alternatively, that the third-party claim was statute-barred.

The court found significant material facts in dispute regarding the employment relationship and vicarious liability, making it impossible to reach a fair and just determination without a full trial and viva voce evidence.

The court also dismissed the limitation period argument, finding the third-party claim was commenced within the statutory period.

The motion for partial summary judgment was dismissed.

The appellant commercial garage owner appealed a jury verdict finding him 37% liable for catastrophic injuries suffered by a minor who, along with a friend, stole an unlocked car with the keys left inside from the garage lot.

The Court of Appeal conducted an Anns-Cooper analysis and upheld the finding that the garage owner owed a duty of care to the minors, as the risk of theft and joyriding by minors was reasonably foreseeable and the garage owner had a responsibility to secure the vehicles.

The court found no residual policy considerations to negate the duty, noting that the minor's illegal conduct was properly addressed through contributory negligence rather than denying a duty of care.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff condominium owner sought certification of a class action arising from allegedly defective balcony railings at a Toronto condominium complex.

After a railing detached and fell, engineering reports concluded the guard-rail assemblies did not comply with the applicable Ontario Building Code, requiring removal and replacement of all balcony railings and resulting in extended restrictions on balcony use.

The proposed class consisted of persons who owned, rented, or resided in units whose balconies were inaccessible during the remediation period.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action in negligence and breach of contract, that an identifiable class and common issues existed, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure with an adequate representative plaintiff.

Certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 was therefore granted.

In a negligence action arising from a slip and fall accident in a parking lot, the defendants brought a motion concerning refusals and undertakings during examinations for discovery.

The court considered disputes relating to disclosure of financial records relevant to the plaintiffs’ claim for economic loss and questions regarding prior complaints about ice and snow conditions at the premises.

The court held that the requested financial information and access to computer systems were relevant to assessing the economic loss claim and ordered that experts for both parties attend the plaintiff’s business premises to retrieve the necessary data.

The court also ruled that questions about prior complaints regarding icy conditions were relevant to the negligence allegations.

The balance of the motion was adjourned without a date and no costs were ordered for the portion argued.

This was a costs and terms endorsement following a partially successful duty to defend application.

The applicants obtained a duty to defend against three insurer respondents but were unsuccessful against the service provider respondents.

The court awarded costs to the applicants against each insurer respondent, awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful service provider respondents in reduced amounts where appropriate, and declined to make a Sanderson order or determine disputed supplementary payments coverage issues within the costs proceeding.

The court also ordered each insurer respondent to pay a share of defence costs already incurred in the underlying action, excluding adverse costs awards, and imposed terms governing the appointment and reporting obligations of independent counsel because of conflicts of interest.

The applicants sought declarations that contractor respondents and their CGL insurers owed duties to defend and indemnify them for legal costs arising from third party claims in underlying vaccine spoilage litigation.

The court held that, for a duty to defend analysis involving third party claims, the statement of claim and the relevant third party claims must be read together.

Applying the pleadings rule and the mere possibility of coverage standard, the court found that three insurer respondents owed a duty to defend, but only with respect to the negligence-based vendor and service-provider claims, not the distinct claims concerning the applicants' own contractual representations and warehouse operations.

The service contracts did not themselves impose a separate contractual duty to defend, only indemnity obligations.

Defence responsibility for the covered category was apportioned equally among the three insurers, and independent counsel was required due to conflict.

Both sides moved for summary judgment arising from a rental vehicle dispute that led to the plaintiff being charged with theft after the defendants reported the vehicle stolen.

The court held there is no tort of negligent investigation against private informants who are not in the business of investigation, and found the malicious prosecution claim failed because the police initiated the charge, reasonable and probable grounds existed, and there was no evidence of malice.

The defamation claim also failed because communications to police were protected by qualified privilege and malice was not established.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action, with costs awarded to the defendants.

The appellant entered into a contract with the respondent for the storage of vaccines in a temperature-controlled warehouse.

The contract required the appellant to maintain all-risk property insurance.

After the cooling system malfunctioned and destroyed the vaccines, the appellant's insurer brought a subrogated action against the respondent and other contractors involved in the warehouse's operations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment dismissing the action, finding that the insurance covenant barred the claim against the respondent (except for a $100,000 negligence carve-out) and that the other contractors were third-party beneficiaries of this protection.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing her motion to add her co-plaintiff as a party defendant in a motor vehicle accident claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant should have known of the co-plaintiff's potential liability years earlier when the statement of defence and counterclaim was delivered.

The motion to add the party was brought too late.

The defendant municipality brought a motion seeking declarations that a contractor’s insurer owed it a duty to defend in a slip‑and‑fall action arising from alleged negligent winter sidewalk maintenance.

The court held that the pleadings test governs the duty to defend and that where allegations, if proven, could fall within policy coverage, the insurer must provide a defence.

Because the statement of claim alleged negligence related to snow removal operations covered by the policy and the municipality was a named insured, the insurer’s duty to defend was triggered.

The court further found a conflict of interest due to counterclaims between the defendants and the insurer’s earlier denial of coverage, entitling the municipality to independent counsel at the insurer’s expense.

The insurer was also ordered to reimburse the municipality’s past defence costs.

The appellants appealed a judgment enforcing a settlement and release, as well as the associated costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding no surprise or prejudice to the appellants regarding the settlement issue and agreeing with the motion judge's reasons.

However, the Court granted leave and allowed the appeal regarding costs, finding no basis for an award exceeding partial indemnity.

The costs order below was set aside and replaced, and costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondents.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict in a fatal motor vehicle accident action, arguing the trial judge erred in his instructions on the duty of a driver entering a highway, failed to instruct the jury on the range of damages for loss of guidance, care, and companionship, and that the damages awarded were excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellants' failure to object to the jury charge at trial.

The Court held that while the damages awarded were high, they were not so inordinately high as to warrant appellate intervention.