Kim T. Duong

The plaintiff, an insured person, brought an action against a medical assessment firm and its assessors, alleging they fraudulently or negligently altered medical reports to minimize her statutory accident benefits.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction, the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and the action was an abuse of process.

The court held it had jurisdiction over tort claims against non-insurer third parties.

The court struck the direct claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation due to lack of proximity, but allowed the claims for the tort of unlawful means, inducing breach of contract, and negligence to proceed, finding that the application of expert witness immunity should be determined at trial.

The defendant, a real estate appraiser, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for negligent misrepresentation.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant negligently appraised a property, causing a buyer's bank to refuse financing and the sale to fall through.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding it plain and obvious the claim would fail because the appraiser owed no duty of care to the plaintiff.

The appraisal was prepared solely for the buyer's bank, and the plaintiff did not rely on it.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action on a motion for summary judgment, which was found to be statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion judge concluded the claim was discovered by August 21, 2015, more than two years before the action was commenced.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the interpretation or application of the discoverability principle under s. 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002, specifically regarding when a proceeding is an "appropriate means to seek to remedy" a loss.

The court rejected the argument that the appropriateness of litigation includes an assessment of its prospect of success or the ability to marshal evidence.

The appellant purchased a second mortgage as an investment, but the mortgagor fraudulently misrepresented the balance of the first mortgage.

After the property was sold under power of sale, leaving no funds for the appellant, she sued the mortgage broker for negligence and breach of contract, and the title insurer for coverage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment dismissing the action.

The court found the title insurance policy did not cover the loss, and the claim against the broker was statute-barred because it was discovered more than two years before the action was commenced.

The court clarified that the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 applied, rather than the ten-year period under the Real Property Limitations Act, because the claim was based in negligence and contract rather than an interest in land.

The applicant, a former member of the respondent housing co-operative, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, disability, family status, and association.

Following an earlier interim decision that dismissed allegations regarding subsidy calculations, the remaining issue concerned whether the applicant experienced discriminatory differential treatment regarding repair requests.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide particularized witness statements or any evidence linking the alleged repair delays to prohibited Code grounds.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against a fraternity and a university.

The university requested a deferral pending its internal investigation, which the Tribunal denied because an internal investigation is not a proceeding under s. 45.1 of the Code.

The fraternity's request for a summary hearing was also denied.

The applicant's unopposed request to amend the application to vary remedies and add a local fraternity chapter as a respondent was granted.