3 total
Co-defendant ordered to pay City's costs after refusing to assume defence under indemnity agreement.
The plaintiff was injured at Centreville and sued the City of Toronto and Beasley Enterprises.
The City requested Beasley to assume its defence pursuant to a licence agreement, but Beasley refused and crossclaimed against the City.
The action was eventually settled by Beasley and discontinued against the City.
The City brought a motion for its costs.
The court found the plaintiffs acted reasonably in keeping the City in the action, but ordered Beasley to pay the City's partial indemnity costs of $20,689.85 due to the indemnity provisions in the licence agreement and Beasley's refusal to let the City out of the action.
Partial summary judgment granted apportioning 10% liability to a driver who failed to slow down at an intersection.
The moving defendants sought partial summary judgment to dismiss the action against them regarding a three-vehicle intersection collision.
The collision occurred when a northbound driver made a left turn in front of a southbound driver (the moving defendant), causing a collision that subsequently struck the plaintiff's stopped vehicle.
The court found partial summary judgment appropriate and used its fact-finding powers to determine liability.
The court apportioned 90% liability to the left-turning driver and 10% liability to the moving defendant for failing to slow down when approaching the intersection with an obstructed view.
The motion for an extension of time to appeal was dismissed because the underlying claim against the insurer was frivolous and lacked a legal basis.
The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal from orders of the motion judge dated February 4, 2019 and April 10, 2019.
The motion judge had initially refused to dismiss the action as frivolous but gave the appellant 90 days to file an amended statement of claim.
Upon the filing of amendments, the motion judge struck out the amended statement of claim as frivolous and vexatious.
The Court of Appeal found that the amended statement of claim failed to articulate any legal basis for a claim against the respondent insurance company and dismissed the motion for extension of time without costs.
