3 total
Motion to dismiss for delay denied and action restored to trial list; timetable imposed for undertakings.
The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the action for delay and failure to restore it to the trial list.
The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to restore the action to the trial list.
The court found that while the plaintiff's explanation for the delay was less than stellar, it was acceptable and not contumelious.
The court also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendant.
The plaintiff's motion to restore the action was granted, and the defendant's motion to dismiss was dismissed, though a timetable for outstanding undertakings was ordered.
Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the defendant due to the plaintiff's delay and short service.
Out-of-province insurer bound by Ontario priority dispute rules after signing Power of Attorney and Undertaking.
The appellant, an out-of-province insurer, appealed an arbitrator's decision finding that the priority provisions in s. 268 of the Insurance Act applied to it for a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Ontario.
The appellant argued that applying the Ontario legislation would have an extra-jurisdictional effect.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, applying the reasonableness standard of review.
The court held that because the accident occurred in Ontario and the appellant had signed a Power of Attorney and Undertaking (PAU), it was bound by the priority provisions of the Insurance Act.
The Court of Appeal upheld a 60/40 liability apportionment for a residential oil spill and clarified that Pierringer settlement amounts are not deducted from a non-settling defendant's proportionate share unless there is double recovery.
On appeal from a trial judgment involving an oil tank leak at a residential property.
The trial judge found Thompson Fuels negligent for failing to conduct required comprehensive inspections and water testing of fuel oil tanks, but found the Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) not liable.
The plaintiff was found 60% contributorily negligent and Thompson Fuels 40% liable.
The appellate court upheld the trial judgment with one adjustment regarding betterment related to a line of credit.
The court addressed complex issues including the enforceability of exclusion clauses in consumer contracts, the application of regulatory obligations to civil liability, Pierringer agreements, and the calculation of damages in environmental contamination cases.