Mitchell Kent Kitagawa

The respondent insured was sued for negligent construction after selling a renovated apartment building.

The appellant insurer denied coverage and a duty to defend based on a policy exclusion for property damage to 'property owned' by the insured.

The motion judge found the insurer had a duty to defend because the word 'owned' could refer to the present tense, making the exclusion ambiguous.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's appeal, agreeing that the exclusion did not clearly and unambiguously exclude coverage.

The plaintiff appealed a decision setting aside a Master's order that allowed her to add an independent contractor and a truck driver as defendants after the expiry of the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiff failed to act diligently after learning of the independent contractor's involvement and did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay under section 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court varied the costs order to reflect the proposed defendants' success on the motion.

The appellant golf club appealed a trial judgment, relying on an exclusion of liability printed on a greens fee ticket.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to bring the exclusion to the respondent's attention as required by section 5(3) of the Occupiers Liability Act.

The court also found no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's treatment of expert evidence, as the expert had not considered certain facts accepted by the trial judge.