COVID-19

The applicant restaurant chain sought a declaration of coverage under its commercial 'all risks' insurance policy for business interruption losses caused by government-mandated closures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant argued that coverage was triggered under the policy's civil authority and ingress/egress extensions.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the policy required 'direct physical loss or damage' to trigger coverage.

The court held that the COVID-19 virus and the resulting government orders did not cause direct physical loss or damage to the insured's property, and therefore the losses did not fall within the policy's coverage.

The City of Hamilton successfully moved to dismiss an application challenging its mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy on the basis of mootness, after the City suspended the policy.

Both parties sought costs.

The court found that the applicants achieved significant success by prompting the policy's suspension and were entitled to partial indemnity costs up to that date.

The City was entitled to partial indemnity costs for its successful motion to dismiss.

The court set off the respective costs entitlements and ordered that no costs be paid by either party.

The accused brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter to stay charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was over 53 months.

After deducting defence delay and delay caused by exceptional circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the death of the preliminary hearing judge, the net delay was calculated at 35 months and 21 days.

As this exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling and the case was not particularly complex, the court found the delay unreasonable and stayed the charges.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter for his role as a lookout in a planned armed robbery of a drug dealer, during which an accomplice shot and killed the victim.

The Crown sought a 9-year sentence, while the defence sought less than 5 years.

The court considered the offender's lower level of culpability (objective foresight of risk), his early guilty plea, remorse, and mental health challenges.

The court also applied significant mitigation for the harsh conditions of his presentence custody during the COVID-19 pandemic and the collateral consequences of his vulnerability to assault in custody due to his plea.

The offender was sentenced to 6.5 years' imprisonment before statutory credit.

The defendants sought costs following their successful motion to compel the plaintiff to attend orthopaedic and psychiatric assessments.

The plaintiff opposed the costs, arguing the defendants' counsel delayed serving motion materials.

The court found no reason to depart from the general rule that the successful party is entitled to costs, noting the plaintiff opposed any examination, even virtual ones.

The court fixed costs payable to the defendants at $7,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The applicant Medical Officer of Health sought an ex parte injunction under section 102 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act to restrain the respondent restaurant owner from contravening a section 22 order.

The respondent had repeatedly refused to comply with COVID-19 regulations regarding masking, contact tracing, and proof of vaccination for indoor dining.

The court found a clear breach of the enactment and granted an interim interlocutory injunction for 10 days, scheduling a return hearing to allow the respondent an opportunity to participate.

The defendant estate trustee brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action challenging the deceased's will for delay.

The plaintiff, the deceased's separated spouse, commenced the action in 2013 but took few steps to advance it.

The plaintiff conceded the deceased's capacity but maintained his challenge based on undue influence.

The court declined to dismiss the action, finding the delay was explained by the plaintiff's advanced age and the COVID-19 pandemic, and that a fair trial was still possible.

The court ordered the matter set down for trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the jury due to the suspension of civil jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

After being advised by the court that a non-jury trial could proceed in March 2022 while a jury trial would be scheduled for June 2022, the plaintiff withdrew the motion.

No costs were ordered.

The defendant physician in a medical malpractice action moved to strike the jury notice due to trial delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant argued that the 11-year delay and the stress of preparing for trial multiple times warranted proceeding by judge alone virtually.

The plaintiff opposed, citing significant physical and technological challenges with participating in a virtual trial due to his catastrophic spinal cord injuries.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendant failed to prove justice would be better served by dispensing with the jury, and adopted a 'wait and see' approach given the anticipated resumption of civil jury trials.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike their own jury notice in a civil action for damages arising from sexual assault.

The trial had been adjourned due to the suspension of civil jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted the motion, finding that the inevitable delay in rescheduling a jury trial would cause actual prejudice and emotional harm to the plaintiff, and that justice would be better served by allowing the matter to proceed promptly by judge alone.

The applicant, a retail appliance store, sought a declaration that it was permitted to remain open for in-person shopping during the COVID-19 grey lockdown stage in Toronto and Peel.

The applicant argued it qualified as an essential business under O. Reg 82/20, either as a 'hardware store' or as part of the construction supply chain.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the legislature intended the term 'hardware store' to be given its conventional, everyday meaning, which does not include a store exclusively selling home appliances.

The court rejected the applicant's attempt to stretch the plain language of the regulation.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery simpliciter of a marijuana dispensary.

He had an extensive criminal record starting as a youth, but this was his first penitentiary sentence.

The Crown sought 3.5 years concurrent, while the defence sought two years less a day concurrent.

The court imposed a global sentence of 3 years (36 months) concurrent to his existing sentence, and granted 9 months of credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving 27 months to serve.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendant's jury notice in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs argued that the anticipated expert evidence was too complex for a jury and that the COVID-19 pandemic would cause undue delay.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, adopting a 'wait and see' approach, noting that the trial was not scheduled until September 2021 and the trial judge retains discretion to strike the jury if necessary.

The applicant, a home appliance retailer, sought an interim injunction to allow its showrooms to remain open despite being ordered to close under Covid-19 public health regulations.

The applicant argued it qualified as an essential 'hardware store' and would suffer irreparable financial harm if closed during the busy December retail season.

The court dismissed the request for interim relief, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried and potential irreparable harm, the balance of convenience favoured the respondents.

The court held that the public interest in enforcing public health measures to prevent the spread of Covid-19 outweighed the applicant's private economic interests at this preliminary stage.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an order allowing the parties' three children to travel to Texas for her parenting time during the Christmas holidays.

The respondent father opposed the motion, citing a recent consent order precluding international travel without a quarantine exemption, and the health risks and school disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the consent order was determinative and that, in any event, the proposed travel and subsequent quarantine were not in the children's best interests.

The plaintiff brought a motion in writing for default judgment against his former employer for wrongful dismissal.

The court first determined that the action was not statute-barred because the limitation period was suspended under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court noted the defendant in default and found the plaintiff was entitled to damages in lieu of reasonable notice.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded a 20-month notice period, resulting in damages of $91,667.00, without deductions for mitigation income as the employer failed to meet its burden of proof.

The applicant sought an urgent hearing for a restraining order under s. 9 of the Reopening Ontario Act to prevent the respondents from operating a restaurant in contravention of COVID-19 regulations.

The respondents requested more time to retain counsel and opposed the urgency.

The court scheduled an ex parte hearing for later in the week, allowing the respondents the option to attend or to challenge any resulting order at a later date.

The applicant sought to schedule an urgent application for relief from orders closing its Toronto and Peel stores under the Reopening Ontario (A Flexible Response to Covid-19) Act.

The matter was referred to the judge as a delegate of the Regional Senior Justice.

The court convened a case conference by videoconference and directed the applicant to notify the respondents.

The court also set out terms for the service and filing of materials for the urgent hearing.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment.

Prior to the hearing, the plaintiffs objected to proceeding with the motion virtually via Zoom and requested an adjournment until an in-person hearing could be held.

The court denied the adjournment request, finding no prejudice to the parties in proceeding virtually.

The court noted that the Zoom platform is effective, the documentary record is easily accessible electronically, and an adjournment would cause unnecessary delay.

The motion was ordered to proceed virtually as scheduled.

The respondents brought a motion to set aside an order granted to the applicant during a telephone case conference that the respondents failed to attend.

The underlying dispute involved a commercial sublease and a $350,000 payment.

The court applied the factors under Rule 38.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the respondents failed to attend due to insufficient notice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also found that the respondents moved forthwith to set aside the order and had an arguable defence on the merits.

The motion was granted and the order was set aside.