Marina Stoeva

The plaintiff brought a motion to determine the order of examinations for discovery, arguing he had the right to examine the defendant first because he initiated the discovery process.

The defendant argued it had the prima facie right to examine first because it was the first to serve an affidavit of documents and notice of examination under Rule 31.04.

The court found that the defendant had the prima facie right to determine the order of examinations and that the circumstances did not warrant the exercise of the court's discretion to direct a different order.

The motion was dismissed.

An insurance broker appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action against an insurer for indemnification.

The broker had arranged insurance for a client's vehicle but failed to properly communicate the vehicle model to the insurer, resulting in a policy issued for the wrong vehicle.

When the client's vehicle was damaged in an accident, the insurer denied coverage.

The broker's errors and omissions insurer paid the client's claim, and the broker sought recovery from the insurer.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the insurer.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge's reasons insufficient for appellate review as they did not address the key contractual indemnification provisions.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was directed to trial.

An insurance broker mistakenly arranged automobile insurance for a client's older vehicle instead of the newer replacement.

Following a collision involving the newer vehicle, the insurer voided the policy.

The broker's errors and omissions insurer indemnified the client and then brought a subrogated action against the original insurer, seeking recovery and a declaration of the insurer's duty to defend and indemnify.

The insurer successfully moved for summary judgment, with the court finding that the brokerage agreement provided a complete defence and that the insurer owed no duty of care to the broker to ascertain the insured's specific vehicle requirements.

The court also dismissed the claim for equitable recoupment, emphasizing the contractual terms and the role of the broker's errors and omissions insurance.

The self-represented applicants brought a motion for an extension of time to file their Notice of Appeal.

The court found that while the delay was lengthy, the applicants had served the Notice of Appeal within the prescribed time limits but failed to file it with the court.

Finding no undue prejudice to the respondent and that the appeal was not entirely without merit, the court granted the extension of time and set a strict timetable for perfection.

The self-represented applicants brought a motion for an extension of time to file their Notice of Appeal.

The court found that the applicants had served a Notice of Appeal within the prescribed time limits but failed to file it with the court.

Despite a lengthy delay, the court was satisfied that the applicants intended to proceed with the appeal and that the respondent would not suffer undue prejudice.

The motion was granted, with strict timelines imposed for perfecting the appeal.