Peter Haney

The defendant insurer was successful on a motion and sought costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded modest costs of $2,500 to the insurer, noting that the insurer had refused to pay the $97,500 it was obligated to pay until after the motion.

The purchaser of a home discovered structural defects and toxic mould after closing.

She sued the vendors, who had built the home themselves, for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misstatement, failure to disclose defects, and negligent construction.

The trial judge found the vendors liable for the cost of demolition and reconstruction.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the findings of fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misstatement, and failure to disclose, finding no evidence of knowledge or reliance.

However, the Court upheld liability for negligent construction, as the vendors owed a duty of care to subsequent purchasers and the defects rendered the house dangerous.

Damages were reduced to the cost of repairing the dangerous defects rather than demolition.

The plaintiff was injured in a car accident by an unidentified driver and claimed the $200,000 policy limit under his unidentified driver coverage with the defendant insurer.

The plaintiff also received $102,400 in disability benefits from a private disability policy.

The defendant insurer sought to deduct the disability benefits from the $200,000 limit pursuant to s. 2(1)(b) of O. Reg. 676.

The motion judge held the deduction was not permitted due to the common law private insurance exception to the rule against double recovery.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the regulation abrogated the common law exception and the insurer was entitled to deduct the disability payments.