Matthew James McMahon

This costs endorsement followed a successful appeal by the appellants (original plaintiffs).

The Court of Appeal had previously allowed their appeal, permitting their entire claim to proceed to trial, and ordered costs of the appeal in their favour.

This endorsement specifically addresses the costs of the motion heard below.

The appellants sought approximately $65,400 in partial indemnity costs for the motion, while the respondents argued for a maximum of $30,000.

The court awarded the appellants $55,000 plus HST for the motion costs, considering the respondents' own bill of costs, the critical importance of the issues raised in the motion (partial summary judgment on core claims and striking a party), and the increased complexity and protraction caused by the motion.

This appeal concerns an insurance dispute following a fire that destroyed a building and valuable accounting records.

The insured submitted claims, some of which were subject to umpire appraisal awards under the Insurance Act.

The insurer refused to pay other claims, including those filed before appraisals and not covered by the appraisal process.

The insured brought an action against the insurer and its adjuster for breach of contract, negligence, and bad faith.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment, dismissing claims related to building and valuable papers losses and striking the claim against the adjuster.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that partial summary judgment was inappropriate due to intertwined issues and the potential for inconsistent findings.

It held that the appraisal process under the Insurance Act is not a "one-shot" valuation and does not preclude further claims for different expenses under the same head of coverage if the awards were expressly confined.

The court also found that the motion judge erred in striking the personal claim against the adjuster, as an employee can be personally liable for tortious conduct even if acting in the course of employment.

This appeal concerned a motion judge's refusal to set aside a default judgment against the appellant, Amandeep Kaur, because she was six days late in paying a costs order, which was a condition for setting aside the judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretion.

The court also dismissed a fresh evidence motion brought by the appellant, concluding it would not have affected the outcome.

The motion judge's decision to not vary the order at the settlement appointment was upheld, as such appointments are for correcting technical errors or avoiding a miscarriage of justice, neither of which was found to be present.

Paolo Messina sought summary judgment to dismiss the claim against him, arguing the plaintiffs lacked evidence of his involvement in an alleged assault at Calypso Theme Waterpark.

The court found Messina could not rely on his own discovery transcript without the plaintiffs' consent, as it would prevent comprehensive cross-examination.

Despite this, the court granted summary judgment, concluding the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence identifying Messina as an assailant and could not rely on the prospect of future evidence.

The decision emphasized the "put your best foot forward" principle for responding parties on summary judgment motions.

Messina's crossclaim and counterclaim were to be discontinued.

The plaintiff, a wedding and convention center, sued its insurer for damages caused by a major rainstorm, claiming under sewer back-up and flood endorsements, and for business interruption, extra-contractual, and punitive damages.

The court found that only the sewer back-up endorsement applied, for which the policy limit of $500,000 had already been paid.

The flood endorsement did not apply as the damage was caused by "Surface Water" (rain pooling on the ground), which was explicitly excluded and not covered by the endorsement's definition of "flood" (overflow of a body of water).

The business interruption claim was dismissed because the business did not cease operations, and any alleged loss of revenue was attributed to the plaintiff's decision to remain open against the insurer's advice to mitigate damages.

Claims for extra-contractual and punitive damages were also dismissed due to the absence of a breach of contract by the insurer and lack of exceptional misconduct.