Robert M. Ben

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking relief to prevent an administrative dismissal and to permit substituted service of court documents.

The court considered evidence that the responding party had been difficult to serve and that traditional service methods were ineffective.

The court found that staying any administrative dismissal was necessary in the interests of justice.

The court further concluded that service by posting the documents to the responding party’s Facebook page was likely to bring the materials to their attention.

The motion was granted and the requested orders were directed to issue.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued the other driver.

In that tort action, she received a copy of an independent medical examination (IME) and a surveillance video from the tort defendant.

The plaintiff subsequently sued her own insurer for disability benefits.

During discoveries in the benefits action, the plaintiff refused to produce the IME and surveillance video, citing the deemed undertaking rule.

The Court of Appeal held that the deemed undertaking rule applies to the recipient of documents obtained in discovery.

Therefore, the plaintiff was bound by the deemed undertaking not to use the IME or the video in another proceeding, and could not disclose them in the benefits action without the consent of the tort defendant or a court order under rule 30.1.01(8).

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The court reviewed the parties' written submissions and largely agreed with the appellant's position, finding it fair and reasonable.

The court slightly increased the award to the main respondent to reflect its greater participation.

Costs were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis, totaling $30,000.

The appellant insurer appealed a decision finding it had a duty to indemnify the respondent insured under a commercial general liability policy for damages arising from defective concrete.

The insurer relied on the 'Your Work' and 'Rip and Tear' exclusions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the 'Your Work' exclusion was ousted by the 'subcontractor' exception because the entity that supplied the defective concrete was properly characterized as a subcontractor.

The Court also found the 'Rip and Tear' exclusion incomprehensible and therefore inapplicable.

The respondent was securing the engine cover of his pleasure craft with a bungee cord in preparation for highway transport when the cord slipped and struck the appellant in the eye.

The appellant brought a personal injury action, and the respondent sought to limit his liability under the federal Canada Shipping Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the allegedly negligent acts were not governed by federal maritime law, as securing a boat for highway transport is not integrally connected to navigation.

Therefore, provincial law applied, and the respondent could not claim the benefit of the federal limitation of liability.

The appellants, representing the estate of a party under disability, sought to enforce a $3.1 million settlement of an accident benefits claim.

The settlement was reached prior to the party's unexpected death but had not yet received court approval as required by Rule 7.08(1).

The application judge ruled the settlement unenforceable, finding court approval was a true condition precedent.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the settlement was a binding agreement suspended pending approval.

Upon the party's death, the protective need for court approval ceased, and the contractual right to the settlement devolved to her estate, making the agreement enforceable.