Peter Daniel Kazdan

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether to grant Diana and Michael Hordo an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision.

The Hordos failed to comply with procedural rules and repeatedly submitted deficient materials.

The court applied the test for an extension of time, focusing on the merits of the proposed appeal, and found that the only potentially meritorious ground was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court granted the extension, referred the perfected motion for leave to a panel, and reserved costs.

The Moen defendants brought a motion seeking a confidentiality order to protect proprietary product design and manufacturing information, arguing it was highly sensitive and at commercial risk.

The plaintiffs and co-defendant Motion Specialties opposed, asserting the motion was premature, unnecessary, and lacked sufficient evidentiary basis to meet the high onus for such orders.

The court dismissed the Moen defendants' motion, finding they failed to demonstrate an important commercial interest or the absence of reasonable alternative protective measures.

The court concluded that the information's level of secrecy did not warrant confidentiality beyond the implied undertaking rule and criticized the Moen defendants for causing unnecessary delay in the litigation.

An insurer appealed a private arbitration award concerning a statutory accident benefits loss transfer dispute arising from a multi‑vehicle highway collision.

The arbitrator had found that a heavy commercial truck insured by the appellant caused a chain‑reaction collision and was 100% at fault under Rule 9(4) of the Fault Determination Rules, entitling the respondent insurer to full indemnification for benefits paid to its insured.

The appellant argued the incident constituted a pile‑up governed by Rule 11, which would limit liability to 50%, and challenged the finding of a collision involving its insured vehicle.

The court held the arbitrator’s factual findings were supported by the evidence and that Rule 9(4) was correctly applied because the other vehicles were stationary in the same lane at the time of impact.

The appeal was dismissed and the arbitration award affirmed.