4 total
Negligence claim against plumber for house fire dismissed due to lack of expert evidence on standard of care.
A plumber used an open flame torch to repair a leaking pipe in the basement of a heritage mansion.
Shortly after the repair was completed, a massive fire broke out, destroying the house.
The property owner and the condominium corporation's insurers brought a subrogated negligence claim against the plumbing company.
The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove causation, as there was no evidence the downward-directed flame ignited combustibles in the adjacent joist space.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to establish a breach of the standard of care because they did not call expert evidence on the standard expected of a reasonably prudent plumber performing soldering work.
Insurer must cover landlord's lost rent from fire regardless of tenant's continuing legal obligation to pay.
A commercial premises was largely destroyed by fire, causing the tenant to cease operations and stop paying rent.
The landlord sought coverage for lost rental income from its insurer, who denied the claim on the basis that the tenant remained legally obligated to pay rent.
The motion judge found the lease was frustrated and ordered the insurer to pay.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the result but for different reasons, finding that the loss of anticipated rental income triggered the business interruption coverage regardless of the tenant's continuing legal obligations.
The insurer was required to pay the claim and could subsequently pursue the tenant via subrogation.
Child's application for release from secure treatment program denied as admission criteria were met.
The child, a Crown Ward with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder and other mental health issues, applied for release from a secure treatment program.
The child argued that the criteria for emergency admission under the Child and Family Services Act were not met.
The Board reviewed the child's history of aggressive behaviour, threats, and previous unsuccessful placements.
The Board found that the child had a mental disorder, posed a risk of serious bodily harm, and that the secure treatment program was the least restrictive and most appropriate method of treatment.
The application for release was denied.
Applicant ordered on consent to pay insurer's expenses of $5,000 in monthly instalments.
Following a preliminary issue hearing where the applicant was precluded from proceeding to arbitration on attendant care benefits, the insurer sought its expenses.
On consent of the parties, the arbitrator ordered the applicant to pay the insurer's expenses in the amount of $5,000, payable in equal monthly instalments over six months.
If the applicant defaults, the insurer may request an order for the balance of the expenses originally sought.
