Natalie Leon

The moving parties, professional engineers and engineering firms involved in the design and construction of the Nipigon River Bridge, brought a motion to stay disciplinary proceedings against them on the basis of delay.

The Discipline Committee found that the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) was responsible for approximately 36 months of inordinate delay in its investigation.

However, the Committee dismissed the motion, concluding that the moving parties failed to establish significant prejudice that would compromise hearing fairness or amount to an abuse of process.

The Committee further held that the public interest in holding a hearing on the merits regarding the failure of major public infrastructure outweighed any disrepute caused by the delay.

The applicant, a dissident member of a not-for-profit corporation, sought access to the corporation's membership list, including electronic addresses, to requisition a meeting.

The corporation had withheld email addresses, citing privacy concerns.

The court found the corporation's refusal was intended to frustrate the dissident members and ordered the corporation to provide the electronic list, including email addresses.

The court also awarded $20,000 in costs to the applicant, noting that the corporation should not use its resources to place roadblocks in the way of corporate democracy.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claim against the respondents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's conclusion that there was no air of reality to the appellant's assertion that she believed the respondent was pursuing her tort claim.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and retained a paralegal to negotiate a settlement with the tortfeasors' insurer.

The plaintiff later sued the tortfeasors and the paralegal, alleging the paralegal was negligent and the settlement was invalid.

The paralegal cross-claimed against the tortfeasors, arguing their insurer owed a duty of care to the plaintiff not to negotiate with an unauthorized paralegal.

The Divisional Court allowed the tortfeasors' appeal and struck the cross-claim, holding that a liability insurer owes no duty of care to a plaintiff making a claim against its insured, as this would create an impossible conflict of interest.

The moving parties (the Balsdons and their insurer) brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion to strike a crossclaim.

The crossclaim alleged that the insureds were vicariously liable for the actions of their insurer in negotiating a settlement with the plaintiff.

The court granted leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4)(b), finding that the issues of whether an insured is vicariously liable for its insurer's actions and whether an insurer owes an independent common law duty to third parties are of significant importance to the insurance industry.