Lisa D. Belcourt

The plaintiff environmental remediation company sued the defendant property owner for $157,941.43 in unpaid invoices.

The defendant counterclaimed for $650,000, alleging the plaintiff over-remediated the property to a higher environmental standard than necessary.

The court found the property was highly contaminated due to a broken sewer pipe and lack of interceptor maintenance by the defendant's tenant.

The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence that the extensive remediation was required and dismissed the over-remediation counterclaim.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, plus contractual interest of 26.7% per annum based on the parties' course of dealing.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer suspended benefits after the applicant refused to provide clinical notes and records, a prior accident benefits file, and a CPP disability file requested under s. 33 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the clinical notes and the medical/rehabilitation portions of the prior files were reasonably required to assess causation, given the applicant's pre-existing injuries from a prior accident.

However, because the insurer's initial notices failed to inform the applicant of the saving provision under s. 33(8), the insurer remained liable to pay benefits until a compliant notice was issued on October 19, 2018.

The insurer is not liable to pay benefits after that date until the applicant provides the required information.

The respondent punched the appellant during a recreational hockey game, breaking his jaw.

The trial judge found the respondent liable for battery.

The respondent subsequently went bankrupt.

The appellants brought a motion for a declaration that the damage award survived bankruptcy under s. 178(1)(a.1)(i) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, which excepts awards for 'bodily harm intentionally inflicted'.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding no intent to inflict bodily harm.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the inference of intent to cause significant bodily harm was inescapable given the force of the punch and the circumstances, and declared that the damage award survived the bankruptcy.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The respondent brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) to amend its Response, which the Tribunal granted as unopposed and reasonable.

The applicant also brought an RFOP seeking production of documents regarding the physical demands of a subway operator position and an order permitting an occupational therapist to enter the respondent's premises to assess those demands.

The Tribunal deferred the applicant's request, scheduling a preliminary teleconference to address the scope of the hearing and the order of evidence.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking access to the applicant's personal health information in its Occupational Health and Claims Management files to prepare its Response, and an extension of time to file the Response.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the requested orders.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on ice in a Canadian Tire parking lot while walking back to her vehicle to retrieve a broken windshield wiper blade for replacement.

The insurer denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the fall did not arise out of the use or operation of an automobile, and even if it did, the use or operation did not directly cause the impairment.

The application for arbitration was dismissed.

The plaintiffs appealed a master's decision refusing to add a party (Trailcon) and refusing to allow amendments to the pleadings after the expiry of the limitation period.

The defendants cross-appealed the master's decision to add another party (684).

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that Trailcon's insurer had constructive notice of the claim, constituting special circumstances to overcome the limitation period.

The court also allowed the amendments, finding they were alternative theories of liability rather than new causes of action.

The cross-appeal was dismissed.