Oliver Hutchison

The plaintiffs were unsuccessful on a motion to amend their Statement of Claim.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $10,000, while the plaintiffs argued for a range of $5,000 to $6,000, citing a power imbalance and limited financial means.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments regarding power imbalance and the necessity of matching time spent, finding the defendants' time investment reasonable.

Applying principles of indemnity, reasonable expectation, and proportionality, the court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $7,500 inclusive, payable within 30 days.

The plaintiffs, a minor hockey coach and a manager/trainer, were suspended by the defendant hockey associations.

They brought an action and later moved to amend their Statement of Claim to add allegations of breach of natural justice, defamation, intentional infliction of mental distress, and breach of contract.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendments failed to disclose reasonable causes of action.

Specifically, breach of natural justice is not a freestanding cause of action, the defamation claims lacked required particulars, the mental distress claims failed to plead flagrant conduct or specific intent, and the breach of contract claim lacked material facts.

The defendants, Toronto Hydro and the City of Toronto, sought leave to issue third-party claims against the plaintiffs (a building owner and two tenants) and various former owners and property managers for contribution and indemnity following a fire in a hydro vault.

The plaintiffs opposed the motions, arguing that covenants to insure in their leases shielded them from liability to each other, rendering the third-party claims legally untenable under the Supreme Court's decisions in T. Eaton Co. and Giffels.

The court granted leave in part, allowing claims against parties in capacities not shielded by the insurance covenants (e.g., former owners, property managers), but dismissed the motions regarding claims against the landlord and tenant in their capacities governed by the leases.

The court also rejected the argument that covenants to insure should be treated as exclusion clauses subject to public policy exceptions.