Who is Matthew Malcolm?

Matthew Malcolm is an Ontario lawyer with 3 court cases on record from 2015 to 2021.

What courts has Matthew Malcolm appeared in?

Matthew Malcolm has appeared in Superior Court of Justice.

How many cases has Matthew Malcolm handled?

Matthew Malcolm has 3 cases on record from 2015 to 2021.

What judges has Matthew Malcolm appeared before?

Matthew Malcolm has most frequently appeared before Justice Pierre E. Roger, Justice Kenneth G. Hood.

Matthew Malcolm

3 total

St. Lawrence Parks Commission v. John Gordon Construction, 2021 ONSC 3159

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motions for summary judgment regarding a prefabricated building dispute, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought $50,000 in elevated costs or $40,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found no basis for elevated costs but awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs.

Noting some excessiveness in the plaintiff's use of two lawyers, the court fixed the costs at $33,000, inclusive of disbursements, to be paid equally by the defendants, and ordered a case conference to manage outstanding issues.

SCJApr 28, 2021

Respondent Counsel

St. Lawrence Parks Commission v. John Gordon Construction Inc., 2021ONSC 2527

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action regarding the defective construction of a storage building.

The defendants argued they owed no duty of care because they followed the plaintiff's specifications for ventilation, and that the action was statute-barred.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendants failed to meet their evidentiary burden to show there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding their duty of care and reliance.

The court also found the evidence did not establish the claim was discovered outside the two-year limitation period.

SCJApr 8, 2021

Applicant Counsel

Zeitoun et al. v. Prudential Assurance Company Limited et al., 2015 ONSC 4501

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to enforce a judgment under s. 258 of the Insurance Act against an insurer alleged to have issued a motor vehicle liability policy to the tortfeasor responsible for a catastrophic 1992 motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs relied on circumstantial evidence, including an accident report listing a policy number, licence plate renewal applications, correspondence with insurers, and an affidavit from the tortfeasor’s daughter.

The court held that the evidentiary record was insufficient to establish on a balance of probabilities that the tortfeasor held a motor vehicle liability policy with the alleged insurer at the time of the accident.

Because the existence of such a policy was not proven, the remaining issues concerning assumption of liability, limitation defences, and damages were unnecessary to determine.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

Respondent Counsel