Peter Rollo

The court considered whether damage to Mr. Hood’s seasonal cabin was caused by an insured peril (windstorm) or by settling, which was excluded under the insurance policy.

After reviewing expert evidence and witness affidavits, the court found that a windstorm was the direct cause of the loss and that the exclusion for settling did not apply.

The court declared the loss covered under the policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the moving party's motion for leave to appeal a decision dated June 27, 2024.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the amount of $5,000.00.

The appellant rock climbing facility appealed an Associate Justice's order requiring its representative to answer 16 refused questions on discovery in a personal injury action.

The questions related to hypothetical scenarios, witness statements, and the subjective interpretation of a liability waiver.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that questions requiring legal analysis, irrelevant opinions, or unfair presumptions did not need to be answered.

However, questions regarding the objective feasibility of safety measures and the subjective understanding of the waiver were ordered to be answered in writing to avoid unfair traps for a lay deponent.

The applicant, Polchil Homes Ltd., sought relief under the Condominium Act for oppression by the respondent condominium corporation, alleging unreasonable delay in renovation approval and unlawful lockout from its unit.

The applicant also sought damages under the Human Rights Code based on assigned claims from its principal and her fiancé.

The court dismissed the Human Rights Code claim, finding that such claims cannot be assigned to a corporation for civil proceedings.

The court also dismissed the claim regarding renovation approval delay, finding no oppressive conduct.

However, the court found that the corporation's act of locking the applicant out of its unit for 18 days was oppressive and unlawful.

As a remedy for this oppression, the court awarded $10,000 in general damages to the applicant and ordered the removal of $7,468.27 in legal fees charged back to the applicant's ledger by the corporation.

The applicant insurer and respondent insureds were engaged in a statutory appraisal process under the Insurance Act to determine the value of flood damage to the insureds' home.

The insurer brought an application to inspect the property and to remove the insureds' appraiser for allegedly refusing to act.

The insureds brought a cross-application seeking to compel the insurer's appraiser to identify specific disagreements and for a declaration regarding the determination of actual cash value.

The court held that the insurer retained its contractual right to inspect the property and ordered an inspection as directed by the umpire.

The court declined to remove the insureds' appraiser, finding his conduct unprofessional but not amounting to a refusal to act.

The insureds' requests were dismissed, as the umpire has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the appraisal procedure and had not exceeded his jurisdiction.

The plaintiff brought an action under the Occupiers' Liability Act after falling on a rubber fingertip mat in the vestibule of the defendant's premises.

The defendant moved for summary judgment.

The court found that the defendant met the standard of care, as the mat was a standard commercial mat, in good repair, and subject to reasonable seasonal and daily inspection protocols.

Furthermore, the court rejected the plaintiff's expert evidence and found the plaintiff failed to prove that the mat caused her fall, noting she was wearing high wedge-heeled shoes and the video evidence contradicted her account.

The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The applicant sought a declaration of entitlement to insurance coverage after her insurer denied her claim.

The applicant had permitted her common-law spouse, whose license had been suspended for 20 years, to drive her vehicle after she felt too ill to continue driving.

The spouse subsequently caused an accident.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's decision to let her unlicensed and incapable spouse drive was unreasonable and not born of necessity.

Consequently, the applicant could not rely on a due diligence defence or obtain relief from forfeiture under the Courts of Justice Act.