Kristin Muszynski

The applicants, R.C. and J.M., sought a declaration that their insurer, Western Assurance Company, had a duty to defend them in an underlying action.

They were sued for alleged negligence in failing to prevent their son's schoolyard assault on a classmate.

Western denied coverage, citing policy exclusions for intentional acts and failure to prevent abuse.

The court found that while the intentional act exclusion did not apply to the parents' negligence claims (as per Unifund and Durham), the "failure to prevent abuse" exclusion did apply.

The court determined that "assault" was synonymous with "physical abuse" in the context of the policy, and the substance of the allegations fell within this exclusion.

Consequently, the application for a duty to defend was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Owen Lightfoot, brought a motion seeking leave to amend his Statement of Claim to proceed under Rule 76 (simplified procedure) and to strike the defendants' jury notice.

The court granted leave to bring the motion, finding that the January 1, 2020 amendment to Rule 76 and the COVID-19 pandemic constituted substantial and unexpected changes in circumstances.

The court further granted leave to amend the Statement of Claim to limit damages to $200,000, thereby bringing the action within Rule 76.

The court held that jury trials are incompatible with the summary trial process mandated by the amended Rule 76, and that the transition provision in Rule 76.14 means pre-January 1, 2020 jury notices are preserved but require the action to proceed in ordinary procedure.

Finding that proceeding with a 3-week jury trial in ordinary procedure would be contrary to the interests of justice and proportionality compared to a 5-day non-jury summary trial under Rule 76, the court struck the defendants' jury notice.

Costs of the motion were reserved.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to amend its Amended Amended Statement of Claim to include new allegations of fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, deceit, and punitive damages, claiming these were recently discovered.

The defendant opposed, arguing the amendments constituted a new cause of action barred by the Limitations Act and that they would suffer non-compensable prejudice due to purged records.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend, finding that leave under Rule 48.04(1) was not required for general amendments under Rule 26.01, and that the issues of discoverability and alleged prejudice from purged records were best determined by the trial judge.

The applicant, a federal inmate, sought habeas corpus with certiorari in aid to challenge his reclassification from medium to maximum security and subsequent involuntary transfer.

The court found the Correctional Service of Canada's decision to be reasonable and procedurally fair, based on a holistic review of the applicant's conduct, including involvement in contraband importation and prior misconducts.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs.

The applicant, an estate trustee, sought increased costs on a full indemnity basis for an Application to Pass Accounts.

The respondent, a beneficiary, opposed this, alleging the application was unnecessary and the trustee's compensation was generous.

The court found the applicant's actions prudent and necessary due to the respondent's baseless allegations and refusal to engage in an informal accounting process in New Brunswick.

The court awarded the applicant increased costs of $24,182.47, payable from the respondent's share of the estate, to avoid penalizing the other beneficiary.