Mark A.B Frederick

The Plaintiff, Nordik Windows Inc., was successful in a certification motion and related motions.

This endorsement addresses the costs for these motions, which involved two rounds of hearings due to a recusal by the initial judge.

The court determined the appropriate costs, considering the re-usable work from the first hearing and the work for the second hearing, ultimately awarding the Plaintiff $1,000,000.00 in all-inclusive costs.

This case concerns a re-hearing of a certification motion for a class action against Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, Aviva General Insurance Company, and Aviva Canada Inc. regarding business interruption insurance claims arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiff, Nordik Windows Inc., sought to certify a class of businesses whose claims were denied or not submitted due to the defendants' alleged blanket denial policy.

The defendants brought cross-motions for summary judgment against Nordik and a declaration concerning the tolling of the limitation period.

The court certified the class action, dismissed the defendants' summary judgment and limitation tolling motions, and allowed the addition of three new representative plaintiffs (Cash and Carry Inc., Hangar9 Studios Inc., and Real Food for Real Kids Inc.).

The decision addresses the adequacy of the representative plaintiff, the identifiable class, and the common issues, particularly regarding notice requirements and the interpretation of insurance policy clauses in the context of pandemic-related business closures.

This endorsement addresses two motions for leave to appeal before the Divisional Court.

The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal a "set aside" order was dismissed with costs awarded to the Defendants.

Concurrently, the Defendants' motion for leave to appeal earlier certification decisions was dismissed without costs, having become moot.

The court reconsidered its previous decision to decline scheduling a summary judgment motion due to the significant and indefinite delays in civil trials caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Initially, the court deemed a trial more efficient, but the changed circumstances rendered trial scheduling unrealistic for the foreseeable future.

Consequently, leave was granted to the defendants to bring a summary judgment motion under Rule 20 to test insurance defences, as this mechanism was now considered more efficient for streamlining issues given the prolonged trial backlog.

Directions were provided for electronic filing and virtual hearing protocols.

Appeal from a motion judge's order reducing spousal support from $4,000 per month to $1 per month.

The parties had entered into a minutes of settlement in 1991 providing for lifetime spousal support.

The respondent sought to eliminate support following his retirement at age 72, when his income decreased from $250,000-$300,000 annually to $65,000.

The motion judge found two material changes in circumstances: the appellant's failure to seek employment and the respondent's retirement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the appellant's failure to seek employment was not a material change in circumstances, but the respondent's substantial income reduction was.

The court set aside the $1 per month order and substituted an order for $850 per month for life, applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines proportionally to the respondent's decreased income.

This endorsement addresses a request by Goodeve Manhire Inc. and Goodeve Manhire Partners Inc. to reserve the determination of their costs from the Damages Trial until the Liability Trial.

The plaintiffs' action against Goodeve had been dismissed without costs, but Goodeve's cost claim was against Tega Homes Developments Inc. due to a cross-claim.

The court indicated it would grant the reservation if Tega consented or did not oppose.

If Tega opposed, Goodeve was granted an extension to file its costs submissions for the Damages Trial.

The defendant was charged with speeding 95 kilometers per hour in a 60 kilometer zone contrary to section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant pleaded not guilty.

The court heard evidence only from the police officer who conducted the speed enforcement.

The key issues were whether the officer tested the laser device at the end of his shift and whether the officer was qualified to operate the device.

The court found that the officer's viva voce evidence established that the device was tested at the end of his shift and that the officer was trained and qualified to use the device.

The court convicted the defendant.