Mario Delgado

The court dismissed Smitten Baby Products Inc.'s action against FirstOnSite Restoration Limited (FOS), holding that FOS, as an insurance investigator retained by the insurer, did not owe a duty of care to the insured, Smitten Baby.

The decision reviews the requirements for establishing a duty of care in cases of pure economic loss, finding that Smitten Baby failed to plead facts establishing a proximate relationship or reasonable reliance.

The court also found that the statement of claim did not adequately plead causation.

Even if a prima facie duty of care could be established, policy considerations would negate it.

The motion for partial summary judgment was dismissed as moot.

The individual defendants in an action brought by a self-represented plaintiff, Michael Frank Kuttschrutter, moved to strike the claims against them.

The claims arose from the Town of St. Marys' COVID-19 vaccine policy, which led to the plaintiff's termination.

The moving defendants argued for dismissal based on immunity under s.448(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, and the plaintiff's failure to plead independent tortious conduct.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims against the individual defendants fell within the statutory immunity, particularly as the plaintiff's reply pleading effectively admitted the defendants acted in good faith.

Additionally, the plaintiff failed to plead any independent tortious conduct or actions outside the scope of employment for the individual defendants.

The motion to strike the claims against all individual defendants was granted, and leave to amend the pleadings was denied.

Costs were awarded to the successful moving defendants.

Following the successful certification of a class proceeding arising from a residential high-rise fire, the court determined the costs of the certification motion.

The plaintiffs sought over $435,000 in costs from the defendant, while the third parties sought their costs from the plaintiffs.

Applying the Pearson factors, the court awarded the plaintiffs $348,056.04 in costs against the defendant.

The court also found that the plaintiffs had drawn the third parties into the certification motion by amending the common issues, and ordered the plaintiffs to pay $45,200 in costs to the third parties.

This decision concerns a motion for certification of a class action following a fire in an apartment building.

The court addressed preliminary issues of jurisdiction (Superior Court vs. Landlord and Tenant Board), admissibility of an expert report, and the involvement of third parties.

The court found that the Superior Court had jurisdiction because the total amount claimed exceeded the LTB's monetary limit, even if individual claims might be smaller.

The expert report was deemed admissible for certification purposes.

The class action was certified, with modifications to the proposed class definition and common issues.

Specifically, the court removed references to "contractors" and "subcontractors" from common issues related to the Third Parties, as no direct cause of action was pleaded against them by the plaintiffs.

The court emphasized access to justice and behaviour modification as key factors favoring certification.

The plaintiff brought a motion to add third parties (an engineering firm and an engineer) as defendants to the main action, alleging negligence in renovation work.

The third parties resisted, arguing the proposed claim was statute-barred.

The court found that the plaintiff had sufficient information to discover the claim against the third parties much earlier than asserted, specifically by August 10, 2016, when the municipality served its third-party claim detailing the alleged negligence.

The plaintiff's motion to add the third parties was dismissed as being outside the two-year limitation period, emphasizing that due diligence requires acting on available information rather than waiting for certainty from discoveries.

The plaintiff suffered a fractured jaw and permanent nerve damage during the extraction of a wisdom tooth by the defendant oral surgeon.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action alleging the surgery was unnecessary, lack of informed consent, and negligence in the extraction procedure.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the extraction was necessary, the defendant adequately disclosed the risks, and the defendant met the standard of care during the surgery.

The court preferred the evidence of the defendant's expert and found that a jaw fracture can occur even with the use of minimal force.