T. Andrew Sprung

On a rule 21.01 pleadings appeal, estates alleged that a problem gambler stole estate funds and lost substantial sums at casinos operated by the respondent.

The majority held it was not plain and obvious that the claims in knowing receipt, unjust enrichment, and negligence were bound to fail, given allegations that the casino knew of the gambler's addiction, knew problem gamblers sometimes steal to fund gambling, and accepted unusually large gambling losses without inquiry.

The court held the motion judge failed to consider whether juristic reasons for enrichment could be vitiated by unconscionability and held Ontario law did not definitively foreclose a duty of care to victims of problem gamblers.

The appeal was allowed, the motion to strike was dismissed, and the action was permitted to proceed.

The appellant appealed a jury's damages award and a trial judge's costs order arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the trial judge's interventions during cross-examination rendered the trial unfair and that the jury was misdirected on causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the damages appeal, finding the interventions did not compromise trial fairness and the causation instructions were adequate.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding costs, setting aside a $60,000 penalty imposed on the appellant's insurer under the Insurance Act.

The Court found no evidence that the insurer failed to attempt to settle the claim expeditiously or that its participation in mediation was a sham.