Christopher Morrison

The plaintiffs sought over $16 million in consequential economic losses following a natural gas explosion and fire in the laundry room of their apartment building.

They claimed the explosion caused high vacancy rates, prevented rent increases, and diminished the building's value upon its sale five years later.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove the hypothetical losses were caused by the explosion rather than their own business decisions, such as a disruptive elevator modernization project.

The court assessed the actual diminution in value and economic loss at $156,631, which was fully offset by $162,457.81 already paid by the plaintiffs' insurer.

The Court of Appeal fixed the respondents' costs of the appeal at $90,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The appellant physician appealed a jury verdict finding him liable for negligent management of a twin pregnancy, which resulted in premature birth and brain damage to one of the twins.

The appellant argued the jury's verdict on causation was unreasonable due to a lack of evidence that the required treatment, amnioreduction, was available at the referral hospital in 1991.

The appellant also challenged the trial judge's jury instructions regarding adverse inferences, the characterization of expert evidence, and the failure to instruct on loss of chance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that there was an evidentiary basis for the jury's conclusion on causation and that the jury charge was fair, balanced, and legally correct.

The appellant, Century Plumbing and Heating, appealed a summary judgment decision that removed the respondents, ADT Security Services Canada Inc. and Intercon Security Limited, from several actions relating to a flood in a Toronto tower.

The appellant argued the motions judge erred in finding the Building Automation System had frozen, in not considering video evidence, and in relying on inadmissible evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence, including an admission by the building owner that the system had frozen, and that the appellant failed to establish a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The moving party sought an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims and various crossclaims against a defendant business entity whose operator had not been located or served.

The third party opposed the motion, arguing that dismissal would effectively extinguish its contribution and indemnity claim because any new fourth party proceeding would likely be barred by the limitation period.

The court considered the interaction of Rules 28, 29.05, and 29.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principle in Rule 1.04 that the rules should be liberally construed to secure determination on the merits.

Although the third party had procedurally advanced its claim by crossclaim rather than fourth party claim, the court declined to eliminate what could be a potentially meritorious claim on purely procedural grounds.

The motion to dismiss the claims against the absent defendant was therefore refused.

The respondents successfully sued the appellants in a jury trial for negligence after a glass Dutch oven shattered, causing severe injuries.

The jury found the appellants 75% liable for failing to adequately warn of the dangers associated with the product.

On appeal, the appellants argued the claim against one defendant was statute-barred, the jury's causation finding lacked an evidentiary basis, and the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on aggravated damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the limitation period and liability, finding the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to set aside the $25,000 aggravated damages award due to an erroneous jury instruction.

The defendant brought a motion to stay an Ontario action arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Alberta, arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs attempted to establish a presumptive connecting factor based on the fact that the defendant’s insurer was an Ontario corporation and might ultimately be liable under the Insurance Act.

Applying the framework recently articulated in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court held that none of the recognized presumptive connecting factors were present.

The court rejected the proposed new factor relating to the insurer’s domicile, finding it inconsistent with the principles of certainty, order, and predictability in private international law.

The Ontario court therefore lacked jurisdiction and the action was stayed.

The appellant sued her father for damages arising from childhood sexual abuse.

The father had previously been convicted of criminal offences based on the same conduct.

At the civil trial, the father adduced evidence from his two sons, who claimed they had committed the abuse, not him.

The trial judge accepted this evidence and dismissed the action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in permitting the father to relitigate the underlying facts of his criminal conviction.

The evidence of the sons was not 'fresh evidence' as it was known prior to the criminal trial, and allowing the relitigation constituted an abuse of process.

The appellants appealed a decision staying their action on an insurance policy on the basis of forum non conveniens.

They argued the motions judge failed to consider Articles 68 and 69 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, which allow an action to be instituted in the domicile of the insured.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Quebec procedural rules are irrelevant to an Ontario forum non conveniens analysis.

The court found no error in the motions judge's conclusion that the action's connection was almost entirely with Quebec.

The defendants appealed an order consolidating two proposed class actions and substituting a new representative plaintiff.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that the order was interlocutory because it did not dispose of any substantive rights between the parties.

As an interlocutory order, the appeal properly lies to the Divisional Court with leave, not to the Court of Appeal.

The minor plaintiff was allegedly attacked by the insureds' son on school property.

The plaintiff sued the son for intentional torts and the parents for negligent supervision.

The parents' homeowner's insurer denied coverage and refused to defend the action, relying on an exclusion clause for intentional or criminal acts by 'any person or any named insured'.

The parents successfully brought a motion for summary judgment declaring the insurer had a duty to defend them.

The insurer appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the exclusion clause ambiguous as to whether the intentional act of one insured excluded coverage for all insureds, including those sued in negligence.

The ambiguity was resolved in favour of the insureds.

The plaintiffs contracted HIV from blood and blood products supplied by the Canadian Red Cross Society (CRCS) between 1983 and 1985.

They alleged the CRCS was negligent in its blood donor screening procedures.

The trial judge found the CRCS breached its standard of care by using a 'good health' questionnaire rather than symptom-specific questions, but dismissed one plaintiff's action for failing to prove causation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the negligence findings and reversed the causation dismissal by applying a presumptive causal link.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the CRCS's appeals, holding that while the Court of Appeal erred in applying a presumptive causal link, causation was established under the material contribution test because the CRCS's failure to implement adequate screening measures materially contributed to the plaintiffs contracting HIV.