Kyle Cameron Magee

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Centa J. dated January 27, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $4,000 to the responding party.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action regarding a collapsed hog barn, arguing it was barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs argued the limitation period was tolled due to the defendants' wilful concealment of construction deficiencies.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the fraudulent concealment exception for the corporate defendants and dismissed their motion.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the action against the individual engineer defendants, finding they were protected by a limitation of liability clause in their employer's contract.

The appellant insurer appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice regarding insurance policy interpretation.

The insurer argued that there was no "Claim" against an "Insured Person" for a "Wrongful Act" nor was there a "Loss" within the policy's definitions.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's interpretation of the governing principles or the policy language, and dismissed the appeal.

The respondent was awarded costs of $16,000.

The defendant, a criminal defence lawyer, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's civil action for professional negligence as an abuse of process.

The plaintiff had been convicted of criminal offences, and his appeals, which included allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel against the defendant, were dismissed.

The court found that allowing the civil action to proceed would require re-litigating the criminal convictions and finding them incorrect, constituting an impermissible collateral attack.

However, noting the plaintiff's new evidence, the court stayed the action rather than dismissing it, pending a successful review of the convictions under the Criminal Code.

Liberty Silver Corporation sought indemnification from Liberty Insurance Underwriters Inc. for legal costs incurred by its officers and directors during an investigation by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC).

Liberty Insurance denied coverage, arguing the investigative order and subpoenas did not constitute a "Claim" against an "Insured Person" for a "Wrongful Act" and that Liberty Silver was no longer "legally obligated to pay" due to an assignment agreement.

The court found the investigative order was a "formal regulatory investigation" and thus a "Claim" and that a holistic interpretation of the policy meant "Wrongful Act" included matters giving rise to such an investigation.

The court also rejected arguments regarding the assignment agreement and statute of limitations.

The application for indemnification was allowed, and Liberty Silver's proposed allocation of defence costs was accepted.