Natalia Rodriguez

The Court-Appointed Receiver of Ashcroft Homes – Capital Hall Inc. sought approval of a settlement agreement with Northbridge Financial Corporation concerning an action for approximately $60 million in damages related to a fire that interrupted construction of a 353-unit residential condominium building in Ottawa.

The Receiver also sought a sealing order to protect the confidential terms of the settlement.

The court approved the settlement as reasonable and granted the sealing order, finding that the public interest in maximizing recovery for stakeholders and promoting settlement outweighed the principle of court openness under the three-part test established in Sherman Estate v. Donovan.

The plaintiff, Ojohome Canada Ltd. o/a Houseful, sought an interlocutory injunction or mandatory order to restore its access to live feed data from the Toronto Region MLS service provided by TRREB.

The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff did not meet the high threshold for a mandatory order and that damages would be an adequate remedy.

The decision discusses the contractual and regulatory context of MLS data access and the requirements for injunctive relief.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed an appeal, reversing a Divisional Court decision that had quashed an umpire's assessment of actual cash value (ACV) for a fire-damaged business premises under section 128 of the Insurance Act.

The Court found that the Divisional Court erred by giving undue weight to market value and by failing to defer to the umpire's reasonable assessment.

It clarified that "actual value" means the value to the insured, which can exceed market value, and that repair estimates are relevant to ACV.

The umpire's pragmatic approach in choosing between parties' proposed ACV amounts was upheld as non-arbitrary, reinforcing the deferential standard of review for such appraisals.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of an umpire's assessment of the Actual Cash Value (ACV) of the respondent's commercial property following a fire.

The umpire had assessed the ACV at $1,084,000, which was significantly higher than the agreed market value of $265,000.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the assessment, finding it unreasonable.

The majority held that the assessment violated the principle of indemnity by providing a potential windfall to the insured, as there was no quantifiable evidence to support a special value to the insured in excess of the market value.

The applicant, a Major-General in the Canadian Armed Forces, sought judicial review regarding his removal from a secondment at the Public Health Agency of Canada, alleging political interference.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to strike the application on the basis that it was premature.

The Federal Court granted the motion to strike, holding that the applicant must first exhaust the internal military grievance process provided by section 29 of the National Defence Act, and that the allegations of political interference did not constitute exceptional circumstances that would justify bypassing the administrative process.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of an application.

The respondent, The Kraft Heinz Company, sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing that they had made a more favourable offer to settle and that the applicant, The Corporation of the Township of South Stormont, had been less than fully candid.

The Township conceded costs but disputed the substantial indemnity scale, arguing the offer was not Rule 49 compliant and denying any sanctionable conduct.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, finding the offer not sufficiently fixed or understandable for Rule 49.10 consequences and no conduct worthy of sanction.

The court also found the time claimed by both sides somewhat excessive and the hourly rates suggested by the respondent's counsel too high for the Ottawa region.

The applicant municipality sought an order to recommence an arbitration and appoint a new arbitrator to resolve a dispute over wastewater treatment costs.

The parties had previously executed Minutes of Settlement that included a specific dispute resolution process for issues arising from data collection.

The court found that the current dispute regarding allegedly flawed data fell squarely within the contemplation of the settlement agreement.

The application was dismissed, and the matter was directed to the specific individual granted exclusive jurisdiction under the settlement.

The appellants' income property was substantially damaged by fire.

They decided to demolish the site and build an eight-and-a-half-storey condominium, claiming replacement cost and building code upgrades under their insurance policy.

The insurer paid only the actual cash value, arguing the condominium was not a 'replacement' of 'like kind and quality'.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the plain and ordinary meaning of the policy required any replacement to be of like kind and quality to trigger replacement cost coverage.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order bifurcating a jury trial so that liability would be tried first and damages later in a motor vehicle accident action involving catastrophic brain injury and complex insurance coverage issues.

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to bifurcate liability and damages where a valid jury notice had been delivered and the parties did not consent, relying on binding Court of Appeal authority.

The court further noted that even if jurisdiction existed, bifurcation would risk duplicative evidence, inconsistent findings, additional delay and cost, and could undermine settlement incentives.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the responding plaintiff.