Kevin Rodney Mitchell

The plaintiffs, a commercial landlord and property owner, brought an action against a tenant and its guarantor for damages arising from the breach and repudiation of a ten-year commercial lease.

The tenant had abandoned the premises and delivered a notice of termination, claiming the lease was frustrated by COVID-19 restrictions and that the landlord failed to timely complete agreed-upon improvements.

The court found that the lease commenced on March 1, 2020, its start date was not conditional on the completion of landlord improvements, and the tenant had repudiated the contract.

Consequently, the court dismissed the tenant's counterclaim for misrepresentation and rescission, and awarded the plaintiffs damages for lost rent, mitigation costs, and the diminution of the property's market value.

This is an appeal concerning the interpretation of an assignment agreement related to parking lot revenue.

The appellant, 200 Ferrand Realty Limited, and the respondent, 1284225 Ontario Limited, shared revenue from a parking lot. 1284225 Ontario Limited, despite having assigned its rights, attempted to negotiate new parking rates with the parking space provider.

The application judge implied a term into the parking agreement granting 1284225 Ontario Limited participative status in rate setting, without providing parties an opportunity to be heard on this issue.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no basis for the implied term, and held that 1284225 Ontario Limited, not being a party to the parking agreement, had no right to participate in rate formulation or negotiation.

The court clarified that 1284225 Ontario Limited's interest is governed by 200 Ferrand Realty Limited's duty of good faith under the assignment agreement.

The appellant insurance company appealed a Superior Court judgment that set aside an arbitrator's award regarding insurance coverage.

The issue was whether an 81-year-old man was principally financially dependent on his son at the time of a motor vehicle accident, which would determine which insurer was liable to pay.

The arbitrator found that the man was dependent, applying the Safeco test.

The appeal judge overturned this, finding the arbitrator failed to account for the voluntary nature of the dependency.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator's factual determination of dependency was reasonable and entitled to deference, and restored the arbitrator's award.

An insurer appealed an arbitrator’s decision concerning a statutory loss transfer claim under the Insurance Act following payment of statutory accident benefits after a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant insurer argued the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 began with the first request for indemnification and barred the claim because arbitration commenced more than two years later.

The court upheld the arbitrator’s conclusion that each request for indemnification creates a separate “rolling” limitation period that begins when the second‑party insurer fails to satisfy that request.

While the first request for indemnification was statute‑barred, later requests were within the limitation period and remained enforceable.

The court emphasized that loss transfer claims arise from statute rather than tort principles and are analogous to recurring contractual obligations.

Appeal from a private arbitrator’s priority decision under the Insurance Act and the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator held that an elderly foreign visitor injured as a pedestrian in Ontario was a dependant of his Canadian family and therefore required to claim statutory accident benefits from their insurer.

The court held that the arbitrator erred in law by focusing on the visitor’s inability to work in Canada due to his visa status while ignoring his substantial assets and ability to support himself in his home country.

The dependency analysis under the SABS requires a holistic assessment of the claimant’s financial resources and ability to be self‑supporting, including the voluntary nature of any alleged dependency.

Because the visitor’s reliance on his family arose solely from his voluntary stay in Canada, he was not their dependant for priority purposes.

The appellant insurer sought indemnification from the respondent insurer under the loss transfer provisions of the Insurance Act for the costs of insurer-generated medical assessments.

The respondent conceded its insured was 100 per cent at fault but refused to indemnify the costs of the medical assessments, arguing they were not payments 'in relation to' statutory benefits paid.

The arbitrator and the Superior Court judge ruled in favour of the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the expense of insurer-generated medical assessments is not recoverable under s. 275(1) of the Insurance Act as payments 'in relation to such benefits paid'.