8 total
The court ordered no costs following divided success on a partial summary judgment motion regarding condominium boundaries.
The Defendants, having achieved partial summary judgment in a dispute over condominium unit boundaries and common elements, sought partial indemnity costs of over $100,000.
The Plaintiff, who also achieved partial success on summary judgment, argued for no costs or costs in the cause, asserting that joining all unit owners was necessary and that the adjudication provided clarity for all parties.
The court, acknowledging the divided success and the complex nature of the litigation, determined that an order of no costs was appropriate, finding that the necessity of joining all defendants and the shared benefit of clarifying the issues outweighed the Defendants' arguments for costs.
The court granted partial summary judgment, amending a condominium declaration to include an elevator landing in a rooftop unit while declaring the adjacent roof and hallways as common elements.
The plaintiff, owner of a rooftop condominium unit, sued the condominium corporation and other unit owners over the boundaries and exclusive use of common elements (Elevator Landing, Interior Hallway, Roof, South Stairwell) and for torts including trespass and nuisance.
The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment.
The court granted partial summary judgment, declaring the Elevator Landing part of the plaintiff's unit, but the Interior Hallway, Roof, and South Stairwell as common elements.
All tort claims against individual unit owners were dismissed.
The Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment, finding the motion judge improperly equated suspicion of contamination with actual knowledge for limitation purposes.
The appellant purchased a commercial property that was contaminated by hydrocarbons that had migrated from an adjacent former gas station property.
The respondents moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, arguing that the appellant knew or ought to have known of the contamination more than two years before commencing the action.
The motion judge granted the motion, finding that the appellant had knowledge of the claim by March 9, 2012, or alternatively by March 30, 2012.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors by equating the appellant's suspicion of contamination with actual knowledge of contamination, and by failing to consider the relevant circumstances of the multi-property transaction and the waiver of conditions.
Environmental contamination claim dismissed as statute‑barred under discoverability principles.
The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing an action alleging environmental contamination of the plaintiff’s property by petroleum hydrocarbons migrating from a neighbouring former gas station site.
The defendants argued the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act because it was commenced more than two years after the claim was discoverable.
The court held that the plaintiff knew or ought reasonably to have known of the material facts supporting a claim by March 2012 through environmental investigations conducted during its due diligence period.
The later Phase II environmental report merely confirmed suspicions already known.
The court also rejected the argument that ongoing contamination constituted continuing damage that created a new limitation period due to lack of evidence of fresh damages.
Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action as out of time.
Late notice defeats coverage under claims‑made‑and‑reported liability policy.
The insured sought reimbursement of defence costs incurred in responding to Human Rights Tribunal proceedings, arguing that information disclosed in a policy renewal application constituted notice of a claim under a “claims made and reported” liability policy.
The court held that the disclosure merely referenced the retention of outside counsel and did not objectively communicate a claim or potential claim to the insurer within the policy period.
The insurer had no duty to inquire further upon receiving the renewal application, as the obligation to provide notice rested on the insured.
The late notice deprived the insurer of opportunities to investigate, control the defence, and attempt early resolution, constituting actual prejudice.
Relief from forfeiture under s. 129 of the Insurance Act was unavailable because timely notice is a condition precedent to coverage under claims-made-and-reported policies.
Court awards substantial costs after failed certification motion in proposed class action.
Following the dismissal of a proposed class action certification motion and the dismissal of claims against one defendant for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.
The defendants sought substantial partial indemnity costs for successfully resisting certification and for obtaining dismissal of the claim against the diocesan defendant.
The plaintiffs and the Class Proceedings Fund argued for reductions based on public interest, access to justice concerns, and alleged unnecessary litigation steps.
The court rejected arguments for a public interest or access-to-justice discount and confirmed that the ordinary rule that costs follow the event applies in class proceedings.
The Grenville defendants were awarded their full claimed costs, while the diocesan defendant’s claim was reduced as excessive.
Class action certification denied for systemic abuse claims at private school; individual case-managed actions preferred.
The plaintiffs, former residential students at Grenville Christian College, moved to certify a class action against the school, its former headmasters, and the Anglican Diocese of Ontario, alleging systemic physical and psychological abuse and religious indoctrination.
The court dismissed the action against the Diocese, finding it plain and obvious that the Diocese owed no duty of care, was not vicariously liable, and had no fiduciary relationship with the students.
The court also dismissed the certification motion against the remaining defendants, concluding that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure because the common issues of systemic negligence would not significantly advance the individual claims.
Instead, the court suspended the dismissal for six months to allow the plaintiffs to propose a new litigation plan to continue the action as a group of case-managed individual actions.
Fleet insurance endorsement only required reporting the number of leased vehicles, not their specific particulars.
The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that the respondent insurer was required to defend and indemnify a driver involved in an accident while driving a rented vehicle.
The respondent denied coverage on the basis that the rental company failed to identify the specific vehicle in its monthly fleet report.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the plain language of the fleet endorsement only required the rental company to report the number of leased vehicles in its fleet, not the particulars of each vehicle.
