Jennifer McGlashan

The plaintiff, Morguard Investments Limited, brought a negligence claim against the defendants, Alectra Inc. and Alectra Utilities Corporation, for damages resulting from a power outage during emergency electrical repairs.

The defendants cut power to the plaintiff's commercial premises in freezing temperatures to repair a broken electrical switch.

The power outage caused the plaintiff's hydronic heating system to freeze and burst, resulting in water damage.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found that while the defendants may have owed a duty of care, the plaintiff failed to establish a breach of the standard of care.

The court determined that the plaintiff, as the building owner, was in the best position to know its heating system and should have alerted the defendants to the risk of pipes freezing in freezing conditions.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) dismissing his claims for income replacement benefits on the basis of res judicata.

The appellant argued that the prior LAT decision only addressed the quantum of benefits, not liability, and that the process was procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LAT correctly applied the four preconditions for res judicata and that a party cannot ignore a final LAT decision to recommence the same claims.

The court also found no procedural unfairness in adjudicating the preliminary issue of res judicata.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision regarding her entitlement to attendant care benefits and home modifications under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued LAT erred in determining the applicable hourly rates, assessing her need for supervisory care, denying home modifications, and violating her Charter equality rights by distinguishing between mental and physical impairments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law, as LAT correctly applied the 1996 Schedule rates, provided adequate reasons for preferring the respondent's expert evidence, and appropriately applied the reasonable and necessary test for home modifications.

A five-year-old child was injured in a single-vehicle accident while a passenger in her father's uninsured vehicle.

The child sought coverage under the uninsured motorist provisions of her mother's automobile insurance policy.

The insurer denied coverage, arguing the father's vehicle was excluded from the definition of 'uninsured automobile' because the father was the spouse of the named insured.

The motion judge found that 'the insured' in the exclusionary clause referred only to the person making the claim, meaning the child was entitled to coverage.

The Court of Appeal upheld this interpretation, finding it consistent with the purpose of the Insurance Act to internalize driving costs and the principle that ambiguities in insurance coverage should be resolved in favour of the insured.