Maurice Benzaquen

The Applicants sought declarations that a Ditch Inlet Manhole (DIMH) on their property was owned by the City of Vaughan, constituted a public utility, and requested an easement and compensation for expropriation under the Expropriations Act.

The City contended the DIMH was private property, citing a subdivision agreement and a by-law that explicitly stated the City would not assume ownership of private drainage structures.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the DIMH was a private storm drainage structure owned by the Applicants, and that the term "rear lot catch basin" in the subdivision agreement encompassed DIMHs.

The court also stated it lacked jurisdiction to mandate expropriation or assumption of responsibility by the City.

The moving party (respondent in the main proceeding) sought an adjournment of his own motion because the counsel working on the file had left the firm and new counsel was not ready.

The court granted the adjournment on terms, setting a peremptory return date and prohibiting the filing of further materials other than authorities.

The court awarded the responding party $4,500 in costs thrown away, payable within 30 days, failing which the responding party could move to dismiss the motion.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave under Rule 39.02(2) to rely on a late expert engineering report in response to a pending summary judgment motion brought by the defendant property owners.

The defendants opposed the admission of the report, arguing it was produced after cross-examinations were completed and years after the incident.

The court granted leave, finding the report relevant, responsive to issues raised in cross-examination, and that its admission would not cause non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay $5,000 in costs on a set-off basis for costs thrown away.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a jury verdict on liability or, alternatively, for a new trial on liability, after the jury found no negligence on the part of either driver involved in an accident.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there was an evidentiary foundation for the jury's verdict and that the verdict was not plainly unreasonable or lacking a foundation in law.

The jury was entitled to conclude that neither party had met their burden of proof.

In a negligence action arising from a slip and fall accident in a parking lot, the defendants brought a motion concerning refusals and undertakings during examinations for discovery.

The court considered disputes relating to disclosure of financial records relevant to the plaintiffs’ claim for economic loss and questions regarding prior complaints about ice and snow conditions at the premises.

The court held that the requested financial information and access to computer systems were relevant to assessing the economic loss claim and ordered that experts for both parties attend the plaintiff’s business premises to retrieve the necessary data.

The court also ruled that questions about prior complaints regarding icy conditions were relevant to the negligence allegations.

The balance of the motion was adjourned without a date and no costs were ordered for the portion argued.

The plaintiff alleged that his former spouse knowingly infected him with HIV and sued multiple defendants, including the federal Crown, an immigration medical examiner, and the employer of the spouse.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment dismissing the claims.

The court held that the action was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge of material facts when he was diagnosed as HIV‑positive in March 2004 but commenced the action in 2008.

The court further held that neither the federal government nor the immigration physician owed a private law duty of care to the plaintiff under the Anns/Cooper framework, and there was no evidentiary basis for negligence or vicarious liability against the nightclub employer.

The claims against all moving defendants were dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant property owner to fulfill undertakings and answer refusals from examinations for discovery, primarily concerning the production of an insurance adjuster's file.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to compel the plaintiffs to fulfill their own undertakings.

The court held that in third-party tort claims, an insurance adjuster's investigation is conducted solely in anticipation of litigation, meaning litigation privilege attaches to the adjuster's file from the moment they are retained.

The court upheld most of the defendant's refusals based on litigation privilege but ordered the production of redacted monthly property management reports.

The court also ordered the plaintiffs to provide particulars of out-of-pocket expenses and collateral benefits.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that the respondent insurer had no duty to defend him against a landlord's statement of claim.

The landlord alleged arson, breach of contract, and negligence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the arson claim fell under the intentional act exclusion, the breach of contract claim fell under the contractual liability exclusion, and the negligence claims were merely labels for what were in substance breaches of contract.