Michael Ditkofsky

The plaintiffs' home flooded, and their insurer's contractor removed goods for storage during repairs.

The plaintiffs alleged that a substantial amount of goods were lost or not returned and sued the insurer in tort and bailment for $226,000.

The defendant insurer moved to compel the plaintiffs to resolve the dispute by appraisal under s. 128 of the Insurance Act and Statutory Condition 11.

The court granted the motion, finding that the missing goods were insured property saved from the flood, and their valuation fell within the mandatory appraisal process.

The action was stayed pending the outcome of the appraisal.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's slip and fall action.

The plaintiff alleged she slipped on ice at a GO station, and evidence from discovery suggested a leaky eavestrough may have caused ice formation.

The court found that a genuine issue requiring a trial existed because the evidentiary record was incomplete, specifically regarding outstanding undertakings about the eavestrough and incident reports.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal from an order of Swinton J. dismissing her application for judicial review of a decision by Kurke J. refusing leave to appeal an interlocutory order appointing the Public Guardian and Trustee as her litigation guardian.

The applicant, who was self-represented, challenged the appointment on the grounds that it violated her human rights.

The court dismissed the motion for extension of time, finding no merit to the proposed appeal and significant prejudice to the respondent from the delay.

The court held that judicial review does not lie against a Superior Court judge's refusal of leave to appeal, and therefore no appeal lies to the Court of Appeal.

The applicant law firm sought a declaration of entitlement to $32,100 held in trust by the respondent law firm, representing unpaid legal fees for services provided to a former client.

The respondent estate argued the claim was statute-barred and the applicant lacked standing.

The court found the respondent law firm's undertaking to protect the account was binding on the estate and stopped the limitation period from running.

The court declared the applicant entitled to payment subject to an assessment of the account, finding special circumstances warranted an extension of the statutory time limit for assessment due to the lack of particularity in the account and mutual delay.