Michael Gauthier

The court considered a motion by the defendant, Echelon Insurance, to compel the plaintiff, 2414840 Ontario Inc. (operating as Cottage Country Family Diner), to answer undertakings and refusals from discovery, including production of the Fitchetts’ personal financial records and the corporation’s entire accountant’s file.

The court held that while the financial health of the corporation and its beneficial owners was relevant to motive in a civil arson claim, the request for the entire accountant’s file was overly broad and amounted to a fishing expedition.

The court also found that the personal financial records of the Fitchetts, as non-parties, could not be compelled through discovery of the corporate plaintiff.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendants, George and Huguette Blechta, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action for damages brought by James and Margherite Derro.

The action stemmed from James Derro's fall on the Blechtas' icy driveway, with Margherite Derro claiming under the Family Law Act.

The court applied the two-stage summary judgment test, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

It concluded that the Blechtas had acted reasonably in their driveway maintenance and that James Derro had willingly assumed the risks by exiting his truck on the un-sanded driveway.

The motion was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The accused was charged with assault, sexual assault, and breach of probation.

The court acquitted the accused of assault, finding her actions were reflexive and lacked the necessary mens rea.

However, the court found the accused guilty of sexual assault and breach of probation, concluding that the Crown proved the actus reus and mens rea for sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting the defense of honest but mistaken belief in consent due to the use of force and lack of reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The respondent sustained serious burns to her lower body when coffee spilled from a cup she ordered at a McDonald's drive-through.

The motion judge determined that the respondent was impaired as a result of an accident as defined in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and was entitled to statutory accident benefits.

The appellant insurance company appealed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the use and operation of the vehicle was a direct cause of the injuries and that the seatbelt restraint increased exposure to the scalding liquid.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The defendant insurer moved to set aside a noting in default and default judgment obtained by the plaintiff in a claim for accidental death insurance benefits.

The court applied the test for setting aside default judgments, requiring prompt action, a reasonable explanation for the default, and an arguable defence on the merits.

The court found the motion was brought promptly and that the insurer had a plausible explanation for failing to defend, given lengthy periods of inactivity and communications suggesting litigation would not proceed imminently.

The insurer also demonstrated an arguable defence, including the possibility that the insured’s death was suicide or otherwise excluded under the policy.

Additionally, the court held that the action had been deemed dismissed as abandoned under Rule 48.15(6), rendering the default judgment irregular.