2 total
Summary judgment refused where potential duty of care by regulator was not plainly impossible.
A third party sought summary judgment dismissing a negligence claim arising from a fuel oil tank leak that contaminated neighbouring properties.
The moving party argued that its role in promulgating industry standards constituted a policy decision for which it was immune from civil liability.
The court held it was not plain and obvious that no duty of care could exist, particularly regarding allegations of inadequate standards, failure to warn of known hazards, negligent investigation, and proximity between the regulator and affected parties.
Given the incomplete evidentiary record and the novelty of the duty-of-care issue, the court declined to grant summary judgment.
The matter was left open for reconsideration after discovery and a fuller factual record.
Appeal of order dismissing motion to stay action on jurisdictional grounds dismissed.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of its motion for a stay of action, arguing that California had exclusive jurisdiction and Ontario was not the appropriate forum.
The Court of Appeal found that the motions judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to establish exclusive jurisdiction was supported by the evidence.
The court deferred to the motions judge's discretionary finding that Ontario was the more appropriate forum and dismissed the appeal.
