Louise Morel

The plaintiff brought an action against his insurer and three individuals after his truck was allegedly stolen and he was subsequently shot in the leg during a confrontation.

The plaintiff, the insurer, and one of the individual defendants each brought motions for summary judgment on consent.

The court found that the plaintiff had fraudulently reported his truck stolen after storing it in a defendant's barn, in an attempt to collect insurance proceeds.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claims against the insurer for breach of contract and negligence were dismissed.

The plaintiff's claims for physical and psychological injuries against the individual defendants were not suitable for summary judgment due to a lack of proper expert medical evidence and were directed to proceed to trial.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a negligence action arising from an alleged gas leak and installation of a replacement boiler in a condominium unit.

The plaintiff alleged exposure to toxic fumes and off‑gassing from carpeting that caused multiple respiratory and neurological conditions.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide admissible expert evidence establishing causation between the defendants’ conduct and the alleged health injuries.

Medical reports relied upon were not in admissible affidavit form and were largely based on the plaintiff’s self‑reports.

The absence of air quality testing or expert engineering evidence linking the installation or maintenance of the boilers to the alleged injuries was fatal to the claim.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action.

A fatal motor vehicle collision occurred after a driver borrowed the vehicle owner’s car earlier in the day and later drove it while intoxicated, causing the death of a young driver.

The plaintiffs and the vehicle owner’s insurer disputed whether the owner or the insurer was responsible for paying an agreed amount of damages.

The court considered whether the driver had possession of the vehicle with the owner’s consent under s.192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act.

Applying appellate authority emphasizing that consent to possession—not consent to operation—governs vicarious liability, the court found the driver remained in possession of the vehicle with the owner’s consent throughout the day.

The owner was therefore vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence and the claim against the insurer was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding a wheelchair ramp at the respondents' premises.

The incident occurred in October 2008, but the application was not filed until December 2012.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as untimely.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and that the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar’s administrative dismissal of her personal injury action for delay.

The action arose from alleged injuries caused by a defective gas fire appliance in a condominium unit.

The court considered the contextual factors governing relief from dismissal for delay, including explanation for delay, inadvertence in missing deadlines, diligence in bringing the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

Although procedural deadlines had been missed and the action had experienced delays, the court accepted that the delays were explained by changes in counsel, health issues, and difficulties obtaining documents from former lawyers.

Finding no demonstrated prejudice to the defendants and that the plaintiff acted promptly once aware of the dismissal, the court set aside the registrar’s order and directed the defendants to schedule a case conference.