Raya Sidhu

The defendants (Insurers) moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's (Freesen) claim for environmental property damage coverage.

The claim arose from an underground storage tank leak.

The Insurers denied coverage based on two exclusions: a storage tank exclusion and a non-compliance with statute exclusion.

The court granted summary judgment based on the storage tank exclusion, finding the policy's clear wording did not approve the tank as a covered location, despite disclosure in the application.

The court rejected the non-compliance exclusion argument due to insufficient evidence of willful non-compliance.

Costs were fixed at $17,500 for the defendants.

Puri Professional Corporation (Puri PC) sought coverage under an errors and omissions insurance policy from Lloyd’s Underwriters and The Sovereign General Insurance Company (the Insurers) for a client's negligence claim related to tax advice.

The Insurers moved for summary judgment to dismiss Puri PC's claim, arguing the alleged wrongful acts occurred before the policy's retroactive date.

Puri PC brought a cross-motion for summary judgment, seeking a declaration of coverage, arguing a clerical error in the application should be rectified.

The court granted the Insurers' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Puri PC's claim, finding the retroactive date exclusion clearly applied and rectification was not warranted as the alleged acts occurred well before the policy's retroactive date.

The defendant, Lloyd's Underwriters, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action by the plaintiff, 2689686 Ontario Inc., concerning a roof collapse at a property insured under a Builder's Risk policy.

The court found that the loss was caused by frost and heaving, a peril explicitly excluded by the policy.

The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the defendant's expert opinion or establish an exception to the exclusion.

Consequently, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action against Lloyd's Underwriters.

The individual defendants in an action brought by a self-represented plaintiff, Michael Frank Kuttschrutter, moved to strike the claims against them.

The claims arose from the Town of St. Marys' COVID-19 vaccine policy, which led to the plaintiff's termination.

The moving defendants argued for dismissal based on immunity under s.448(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, and the plaintiff's failure to plead independent tortious conduct.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims against the individual defendants fell within the statutory immunity, particularly as the plaintiff's reply pleading effectively admitted the defendants acted in good faith.

Additionally, the plaintiff failed to plead any independent tortious conduct or actions outside the scope of employment for the individual defendants.

The motion to strike the claims against all individual defendants was granted, and leave to amend the pleadings was denied.

Costs were awarded to the successful moving defendants.