Patrick J. Monaghan

The appellants challenged dismissal of their action as an abuse of process.

The court agreed the claim repeated issues from prior mortgage litigation and also dismissed the fresh-evidence motion.

The plaintiffs sought to pursue claims against the defendants in relation to a mortgage enforcement action that had already been decided in favour of the defendants.

The court found that all claims in the current action were either previously adjudicated or could have been raised in the prior proceeding.

The action was dismissed on the basis of issue estoppel, action estoppel, and abuse of process.

The appellant, a former employee, appealed a lower court decision regarding a share purchase agreement with his former employer.

The dispute centered on interest payments, alleged breach of good faith, and repudiation of the agreement.

The application judge found no breach of good faith or repudiation, ordered payment of overdue interest, T5 form corrections, and post-judgment interest, but denied pre-judgment interest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the findings on good faith and repudiation, affirming that the employer's failure to pay some interest did not constitute repudiation as principal payments continued.

However, the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's decision on pre-judgment interest, ordering it at the rate set out in the agreement.

This is a supplementary endorsement on costs.

The respondent sought reconsideration of a prior costs award, arguing that their Rule 49 offer to settle should have been considered.

The court declined to vary the original costs award, finding the respondent's offer lacked the necessary clarity and precision required by Rule 49.10(2) and jurisprudence.

The court also reiterated that the initial costs award was justified by the respondent's uncommunicative conduct, which necessitated the litigation and caused the applicant to incur expenses and tax issues.

The applicant, a former employee, brought an application seeking payment of outstanding interest and interpretation of a share purchase agreement after selling shares back to the respondent company.

The dispute arose over the method of calculating and timing of interest payments on annual installments for the shares.

The court clarified the interest calculation, ruling that interest should be calculated on the outstanding principal balance, and ordered the respondent to pay overdue interest and reissue correct tax documents.

However, the court dismissed the applicant's claims of repudiation, anticipatory breach, and breach of the duty of good faith by the respondent, finding that the respondent's conduct, while imperfect, did not amount to a fundamental breach of the agreement.

Costs were awarded to the applicant due to the respondent's failure to respond in a timely fashion, which necessitated the application.

The plaintiff brought an unopposed motion to transfer a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision from Brampton to Toronto.

The collision occurred in Toronto, the plaintiff resides and sustained damages in Toronto, and two other related actions were already commenced in Toronto.

Applying the holistic factors under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the plaintiff met the onus of demonstrating that a transfer was in the interest of justice.

The motion was granted.

A trucking company sought declaratory relief from its insurer regarding coverage for stolen cargo in the absence of an underlying claim from the customer.

The insurer denied coverage citing misrepresentation regarding cargo type and lack of custody.

The application judge made declarations of fact addressing the insurer's two grounds for denial but declined to declare an obligation to indemnify.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that declaratory relief was improper in the absence of a real dispute and that the application judge erred by making findings of fact detached from rights of the parties.

The court ordered consolidation of the application with the subsequent action commenced by the trucking company.

The appellant insurer appealed a motion judge's decision that it was obliged to provide underinsured motorist coverage to the respondent truck driver under an OPCF 44R Family Protection Coverage endorsement on his personal automobile policy.

The respondent operated a tractor owned by his corporation and leased to a transport company under fleet insurance.

He suffered serious injuries when struck by an underinsured driver in Florida.

The Court of Appeal adjourned the appeal sine die to allow the parties to enlarge the record with evidence regarding how Ontario-based truck drivers obtain underinsured coverage, recognizing that a ruling could affect thousands of commercial vehicle drivers and their families.

The applicant trucking company sought declarations of insurance coverage after its cargo of electronic goods was stolen.

The respondent insurer denied the claim on two grounds: that the goods were not in the applicant's custody and that the applicant misrepresented the type of cargo.

The court rejected both grounds, finding that the goods were covered under the policy and that no material misrepresentation occurred.

However, the court declined to order a specific indemnity amount due to the claim value not being crystallized, instead issuing declarations in the applicant's favour.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a modest scale.

A lessor of vehicles sought to establish that it was entitled to third-party liability insurance coverage under an automobile insurance policy issued by the respondent insurer.

The dispute centered on whether an OPCF 5 endorsement, which permits lessors to lease vehicles and provides coverage to both lessors and lessees, was part of the Certificate of Automobile Insurance.

The application judge found the endorsement was not part of the policy.

The Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the Certificate contained the phrase "AS PER OPCF 5 FORMS" which the insurer had added to its standard form, and that this language, combined with the commercial context of the transaction, demonstrated the insurer's intent to provide liability coverage to both the lessor and lessee.

An engineer employed by an engineering firm acquired shares in the company and sold them back for $891,820 to be paid in ten installments.

After the employee resigned and became CEO of a rival firm, the company refused to make further payments, alleging breach of fiduciary duty through solicitation of employees and use of confidential information.

The employee sued for breach of contract.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding no breach of fiduciary duty caused any harm.

The company appealed, arguing that breach of fiduciary duty cases are unsuitable for summary judgment and require a full trial.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that breach of fiduciary duty is not a special category exempt from summary judgment and that no genuine issue for trial existed on the record.

The appellant sought damages of approximately $1 million for losses sustained when a drainage pipe running underneath a floor installed by the respondent caused a flood in its warehouse.

The trial judge dismissed the negligence claim, finding that although the respondent damaged the drainage pipe by puncturing it with a stake used to brace concrete forms, the respondent nevertheless met the standard of care.

The appellant appealed, arguing the trial judge failed to consider contractual duties, erred in foreseeability analysis, and erred in not determining whether industry practice was itself negligent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the application of the standard of care, foreseeability analysis, or treatment of industry practice.

The applicant lessor sought a declaration that it was entitled to third party liability coverage under an automobile insurance policy issued to its lessee, and that the cancellation of the policy by the lessee's agent was ineffective against it.

The court applied the principles of insurance contract interpretation and found that the policy unambiguously provided only property damage coverage to the applicant as a lienholder, as no OPCF 5 endorsement was issued.

The application was dismissed, and the court found it unnecessary to determine the validity of the policy cancellation.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for breach of contract, the plaintiff sought costs of $96,013.32.

The defendant argued the amount was excessive based on a quantitative comparison of hours docketed by counsel.

The court rejected the purely quantitative approach, noting it undervalued the qualitative aspects of the case, including the fact that the plaintiff had to defend against a substantial setoff claim alleging breach of fiduciary duty.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs as requested.

The plaintiff, a former senior executive, moved for summary judgment to enforce payment of outstanding installments for the sale of his shares to the defendant company.

The defendant resisted, asserting an equitable setoff for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of confidential information by the plaintiff after his departure.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty or misappropriation of confidential information, dismissing the defendant's setoff claim.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for the present value of the outstanding share payments, determining an appropriate discount rate based on expert evidence.

The defendant, having successfully defended an eight-day trial, sought enhanced costs, including full indemnity for trial attendance and costs submissions, citing offers to settle.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing for denial of costs due to the defendant's alleged litigation misconduct, including late document production and expert reports.

The court found that while the defendant's offers to settle were substantial, the circumstances were not exceptional enough to warrant a departure from the normal practice of awarding partial indemnity costs.

The court also found no clear evidence that one party's pre-trial conduct was significantly more egregious than the other's to justify a costs adjustment.

The court adjusted some disbursements claimed by the defendant.

Ultimately, the defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs totaling $219,500.

The plaintiff, Mabe Canada Inc., sued the defendant, United Floor Ltd., in negligence for approximately $1 million in damages caused by a flood in its warehouse.

The flood resulted from a damaged drainage pipe located beneath the concrete floor, which the plaintiff alleged was punctured by the defendant's stakes during floor installation in 2004.

The court found that the pipe was indeed damaged by the defendant's stakes.

However, the court concluded that the defendant met the applicable standard of care, as the general contractor (First Gulf) failed to adequately inform United Floor of the shallow and unusual location of the pipes, and industry practice did not require the defendant to proactively locate such unexpectedly shallow pipes.

Consequently, the plaintiff failed to prove negligence, and no damages were awarded.

The insured drove a snowmobile after consuming alcohol to rescue a friend who was lost on a frozen lake.

The insured held a valid driver's licence but was in breach of a probation order prohibiting him from driving with alcohol in his blood.

Following an accident that seriously injured the friend, the insured's automobile insurer denied coverage, arguing he was not 'authorized by law to drive' under statutory condition 4.

The court held that 'authorized by law' refers to the possession of and compliance with a valid driver's licence, not court orders or legislative prohibitions.

The insurer was ordered to provide full coverage.

Multiple insurers disputed their duty to defend an insured chemical delivery company arising from two actions following a chlorine gas release at a public pool.

The insured and one insurer sought declarations compelling other insurers to contribute to defence costs.

Applying the pleadings rule from Monenco and related appellate authorities, the court held that the possibility of coverage under the policies triggered the duty to defend and that extrinsic evidence could not be used to prematurely determine factual causation issues.

The court also rejected an argument that defence cost coverage depended on insurer consent.

Principles of equitable contribution required all insurers with potential coverage to share defence costs.

The plaintiff and defendant were participating in a charity bicycle ride on a closed highway.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant suddenly swerved into his path, causing a collision and injuries.

The court found that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and that the appropriate standard of care was negligence, not recklessness.

The court concluded that the defendant breached this standard by making a sudden, unpredictable movement contrary to the rules of group cycling.

The court also held that the waiver signed by the plaintiff did not release other participants from liability for negligence.

Liability was found against the defendant.