Vahe Avagyan

The respondent slipped and fell on an icy driveway while walking toward a waiting rideshare vehicle.

The License Appeal Tribunal found the incident was an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, entitling her to benefits.

The insurer appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal erred in law by conflating the 'but for' test with the direct causation test.

The court held that while the vehicle's location led to the respondent being on the icy driveway, the use or operation of the vehicle was not the direct cause of her injuries.

The appellant contractor scratched approximately 180 windows while performing cleaning services at a newly constructed commercial building and reimbursed the building owner about $134,000 for the damage.

It sought indemnification under its commercial general liability policy, but the insurer denied coverage relying on “your work” exclusions.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action.

The Court of Appeal held that the occurrence causing the property damage was the scratching of the windows during the cleaning operation and that the damage arose out of the insured’s work.

Because the property damage fell squarely within the policy’s exclusions, coverage was properly denied and the appeal was dismissed.

The defendants appealed an order granting the plaintiff leave to amend her statement of claim in an occupier's liability action.

The defendants argued the amendment introduced a new cause of action outside the limitation period, making the order final.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding the amendment merely alleged an alternative factual scenario for the fall and did not add a new cause of action.

As the order was interlocutory, the appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.