Matheson

The moving party, a subcontractor, brought a motion to oppose the confirmation of an Associate Justice's report arising from a 24-day consolidated construction lien trial.

The subcontractor argued that the Associate Justice erred in finding that the general contractor did not breach the payment terms, that the termination of the contract was justified, and that the general contractor did not breach the duty of good faith.

The Superior Court of Justice found no errors in principle or palpable and overriding errors of fact or mixed fact and law in the Associate Justice's findings.

The motion to oppose confirmation was denied and the report was confirmed.

The applicant lender sought a declaration of coverage under a title insurance policy after a private mortgage transaction was discovered to be an identity fraud.

The respondent insurer denied coverage, relying on an exception that applied if mortgage proceeds were paid to anyone other than the registered titleholder.

The funds had been disbursed to the borrower's lawyer in trust.

The court held that the exception was ambiguous and did not clearly require direct payment to the titleholder.

Construing the ambiguity against the insurer, the court found the exception did not apply and declared that the policy provided coverage for the loss.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 59.06 and the court's inherent jurisdiction to reopen a previous decision dismissing her application to set aside an arbitral award.

She alleged fraud regarding statements made by opposing counsel during the arbitration and sought to introduce new evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of fraud and concluding that the applicant was improperly attempting to reargue the merits of her application without meeting the test for fresh evidence.

The applicant lawyer sought to set aside an arbitral award that upheld LawPRO's decision to settle a claim against her without her consent.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness under section 19 of the Arbitration Act because the arbitrator refused her request for an adjournment and allegedly forced LawPRO's preferred procedural approach on her.

The court found that the arbitrator properly exercised his discretion in denying the adjournment and that the applicant was not treated unfairly.

The application was dismissed.

The insured drove a snowmobile after consuming alcohol to rescue a friend who was lost on a frozen lake.

The insured held a valid driver's licence but was in breach of a probation order prohibiting him from driving with alcohol in his blood.

Following an accident that seriously injured the friend, the insured's automobile insurer denied coverage, arguing he was not 'authorized by law to drive' under statutory condition 4.

The court held that 'authorized by law' refers to the possession of and compliance with a valid driver's licence, not court orders or legislative prohibitions.

The insurer was ordered to provide full coverage.

The applicant sought costs following a 12-day family law trial where there was divided success.

The applicant claimed costs on a full recovery basis, alleging the respondent acted in bad faith regarding financial disclosure and purported loans.

The court found the respondent's conduct came close to bad faith but was driven by self-interest rather than a devious intent to harm, thus rejecting the claim for full recovery costs.

Considering the divided success, the respondent's poor conduct, and a partially successful offer to settle by the respondent, the court fixed costs payable to the applicant at $20,000.

No costs were awarded for earlier urgent motions.

Following a trial where the self-represented plaintiff was awarded $400,000 USD, the court determined outstanding issues of interest, exchange rate, and costs.

The court exercised its discretion to reduce the prejudgment interest rate to 2.25% and the period to seven years due to market fluctuations and delay.

The court declined to depart from the default currency conversion date under the Courts of Justice Act.

Costs were fixed at $23,000 all-inclusive.

The self-represented plaintiffs moved to consolidate a Rule 7.08 settlement approval motion, brought by the Public Guardian and Trustee on behalf of a co-plaintiff under disability, with the upcoming trial.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that Rule 6 only permits consolidation of 'proceedings', and a motion is not a proceeding.

Furthermore, the court noted that consolidation would be inappropriate as it would expose the trial judge to privileged settlement information, prejudicing the plaintiffs.

The court also ordered the sealing of an affidavit containing privileged settlement details.