Mark O. Charron

The National Gallery brought an application seeking a declaration that its contractor, Lafleur, and Lafleur's insurer, Intact, owed a duty to defend it in two underlying actions arising from a fatal trip and fall by a Lafleur employee on the Gallery's premises.

The court reviewed the commercial general liability policy and the service contract's indemnity provisions.

It found that the underlying claims alleged negligence relating to the design and control of the premises by the Gallery as occupier, independent of any activities by Lafleur.

Furthermore, the policy's exclusions for workers' compensation and employer's liability applied.

The application was dismissed, as neither respondent owed a duty to defend.

The defendants, the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa and the police, brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' action under Rule 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The self-represented plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent and breached their duties by failing to investigate an assault by his ex-wife in 1995.

The court found that the plaintiff was aware of the assault and the police's refusal to lay charges by 2002 at the latest.

Consequently, the limitation period had expired long before the action was commenced in 2016.

The court struck the statement of claim without leave to amend, concluding it was plain and obvious the claim had no chance of success and was an abuse of process.

The defendant municipality brought a motion to bifurcate the trial into separate hearings for liability and damages three months before a scheduled five-week trial for a catastrophic motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

The court held that while Rule 6.1.01 permits bifurcation on consent, it does not remove the court's inherent jurisdiction to order it without consent in exceptional cases.

However, applying the Bourne v. Saunby factors, the court found the case was not so extraordinary as to warrant bifurcation, noting that much of the damages preparation was already complete and delay would prejudice the plaintiff.

The motion was dismissed.

Following a successful Rule 21 motion striking the plaintiff’s action arising from a motor vehicle collision with a cow on a roadway, the municipal defendants sought costs.

The plaintiff had alleged that the cow’s owner failed to confine the animal and that the municipalities failed to ensure proper confinement on private land.

After reviewing written submissions and the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court determined a reasonable and fair cost award.

Emphasizing that cost awards should reflect what is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, the court ordered a modest all‑inclusive amount.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident when he collided with a cow on a county road.

He sued the owner of the cow and the municipalities, alleging the municipalities failed to ensure the owner properly secured the cow on her private land.

The municipalities brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the claim against them.

The court granted the motion, finding no recognized duty of care, insufficient proximity, and broad policy considerations against making municipalities insurers for escaped animals.

The claim and cross-claim against the municipalities were dismissed.

The moving municipal defendants brought a Rule 21 motion to strike a negligence claim arising from a motor vehicle collision with a cow on a public roadway.

The plaintiff alleged that the municipalities failed to ensure that the cow’s owner properly secured the animal on private property.

The court held that the pleaded duty of care had never been recognized in law and that there was insufficient proximity between the plaintiff and the municipalities to ground such a duty.

The court further found strong policy reasons against imposing municipal liability for monitoring privately owned animals or fencing.

The claim and a related cross‑claim against the municipalities were dismissed.

The defendant municipality brought a motion to bifurcate the trial into separate hearings for liability and damages in a catastrophic personal injury motor vehicle accident case.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion.

The court granted the motion, finding that the liability issues were distinct from the complex damages issues, and that a separate liability trial would likely save significant time and costs, especially since a damages trial would be unnecessary if the municipality was found not liable.

The court also granted the municipality leave to bring the motion after the action had been set down for trial.