Peter William Kryworuk

In this certified class action concerning business interruption insurance claims related to COVID-19 and civil authority orders, the plaintiffs moved on consent for approval of a Notice of Proposed Settlement and a Pre-Approval Notice Plan.

The court approved the notice and plan, finding them informative and consistent with the prior successful certification notice program.

The court also ordered that the action be treated as a Class Proceedings matter despite retaining a Commercial List file number.

The plaintiffs in this certified class action moved on consent for approval of a Notice of Proposed Settlement and a Pre-Approval Notice Plan.

The court found the proposed Notice appropriately informative and the pre-approval plan for dissemination consistent with the successful certification notice program.

The motion was granted, and the Notice of Proposed Settlement and the Pre-approval Notice Plan were approved.

The appellant physician appealed a trial judgment finding her liable for the respondent's catastrophic brain injury following an acute asthmatic attack.

The trial judge found the appellant breached the standard of care by delaying intubation and failing to call for help sooner.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge improperly relied on a critical care note containing double hearsay and opinion evidence regarding the respondent's hypoxemia, and erred in his causation analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding the note was admissible under the business records exception and as a party admission, and that the trial judge's causation findings were supported by the expert evidence.

The appellants, Tyson Rogerson and his adoptive parents, appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action against two physicians, Dr. Elyse Savaria and Dr. Nkiruka Nwebube.

The appellants argued that the physicians breached their duty of care by failing to report a suspected risk of harm to Tyson to the Children's Aid Society (CAS) under s. 72 of the Child and Family Services Act, which they contended would have prevented Tyson's catastrophic brain injury.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the physicians did not breach the standard of care in failing to report, and even if there was a breach, the appellants failed to prove causation, as the CAS would not have intervened in a way that would have prevented the injury.

The appeal was dismissed.

This decision addresses a request by the respondent (defendant in the original action) to limit the scope of a new trial on liability and damages, which had been ordered by the Court of Appeal in a prior decision.

The court dismissed the request, emphasizing that the evidence and issues were complex, interrelated, and interdependent.

Limiting the trial to specific issues would risk artificial credibility assessments and unreliable fact-finding.

This case conference addressed the scheduling of multiple motions following a previous order for a re-hearing of a certification motion.

Counsel for both the plaintiff and defendants sought to schedule additional motions concurrently, including the plaintiff's motion to add representative plaintiffs, the defendants' summary judgment motion against the representative plaintiff, and the defendants' limitations motion regarding the tolling of the limitation period.

Despite a prior order only addressing the certification re-hearing, the court exercised its discretion to hear all four motions together over a three-day period, citing judicial economy due to substantial overlap in issues and counsel's agreement.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action against an obstetrician following a catastrophic birth injury.

The infant suffered acute near-total oxygen deprivation prior to birth, resulting in severe permanent brain damage.

At trial, the judge dismissed the action, finding no breach of the standard of care and no causation.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons were legally inadequate regarding causation and one of the standard of care issues (the failure to complete the delivery with Kielland forceps).

The reasons failed to explain critical findings, preventing meaningful appellate review.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered on all issues of liability and damages.

This endorsement addresses two motions for leave to appeal before the Divisional Court.

The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal a "set aside" order was dismissed with costs awarded to the Defendants.

Concurrently, the Defendants' motion for leave to appeal earlier certification decisions was dismissed without costs, having become moot.

The appellant, Gordon Dunk Farms Ltd., appealed a summary judgment decision that found its action for negligence and breach of contract against the respondents (designers, contractors, and concrete workers) was statute-barred due to the expiration of the limitation period.

The action stemmed from the collapse of a hog barn.

The motion judge found that the appellant's principals knew or ought to have known the material facts constituting their claim by May 12, 2014, more than two years before the action was commenced on May 24, 2016.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that a "claim" under the Limitations Act, 2002, does not require knowledge of every specific act or omission, but rather sufficient facts to draw a plausible inference of liability.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming the action was statute-barred against all respondents.

The plaintiffs brought motions to certify three proposed class actions against Aviva Insurance for the blanket denial of coverage for COVID-19-related business loss claims.

The claims focused on 'restricted access' and 'negative publicity' coverage provisions in Aviva's standard-form policies.

The court found that the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act were met, noting the commonality of the standard-form policies and the identical denial letters.

The two Lerners Actions were certified, and the Nordik Action was conditionally certified pending a motion regarding the representative plaintiff.

This is a costs endorsement for three inter-related appeals (C66633, C64430, and C64479).

The parties resolved costs for appeal C64479.

For appeals C64430 and C66633, the Court found that success was mixed, and therefore, there would be no order as to costs for those appeals.

The parties made written submissions regarding the costs of the appeal and a related motion for leave to adduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal ordered no costs as between the respondent and the Nealon appellants.

The respondent was awarded costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $40,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, against the Garber appellants.

A class representative of Mr. Sub franchisees appealed the Court of Appeal's dismissal of their negligence claim against an exclusive meat supplier following a 2008 listeria recall that caused significant economic losses.

The majority held that the supplier owed no duty of care to the franchisees in respect of pure economic losses because the parties lacked the proximity required under the Anns/Cooper framework.

The majority found that neither the negligent misrepresentation nor the negligent supply of shoddy goods categories of pure economic loss applied, and that the multipartite contractual matrix — under which the franchisees could have sought alternative supply sources — precluded a finding of proximity.

The dissent would have recognized a novel duty of care arising from the close and direct relationship between the exclusive supplier and the franchisees who were contractually bound to purchase exclusively from it.

The appeal was dismissed five-to-four, with costs.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that a dock they constructed on Lake Simcoe constituted a private nuisance to the neighbouring respondent.

The trial judge had ordered a mandatory injunction for the dock's removal, punitive damages of $100,000, and substantial indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of nuisance and the mandatory injunction, noting the dock substantially and unreasonably interfered with the respondent's ability to use their boat.

The Court also upheld the punitive damages against the property owners (Garber) due to their refusal to remedy the nuisance.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the punitive damages against the contractor (Nealon) and reducing the costs awarded against him to a partial indemnity scale, finding his conduct did not warrant such exceptional penalties.

This is an appeal from a jury trial in a personal injury case arising from a single-vehicle crash.

The plaintiffs (Tuffnail family) were injured, and liability was apportioned among the driver (Meekes), the host (Bolton), the bartender (Coulthard), and the plaintiff (Tuffnail).

Multiple parties appealed the post-verdict rulings.

The Court of Appeal found that Coulthard was "jointly liable" with Meekes for the purposes of OPCF 44R, allowing State Farm to deduct Coulthard's insurance limits, thereby reducing State Farm's payout to the Tuffnails.

The court clarified that State Farm must share subrogation recoveries with the Tuffnails on a pro rata basis until the Tuffnails receive full indemnification under the judgment, correcting the trial judge's order that limited it to the OPCF 44R endorsement.

The court upheld the trial judge's decision on Coulthard's several liability to Bolton, rejecting the argument for reapportionment of fault without Meekes.

The court found the trial judge erred in awarding prejudgment interest higher than the bank rate, reducing it to 1.3% as market rates did not justify a higher rate and the "expectation" factor was inappropriate.

Finally, the court upheld the denial of Coulthard's request to amend pleadings to add a limitation defence post-verdict due to non-compensable prejudice.

The appellants appealed an order granting the respondent leave to commence a derivative action on behalf of a closely held corporation.

The appellants argued that one of the claims for alleged overpayment of management fees was statute-barred and that the application judge erred in finding the action was in the best interests of the corporation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that there was an arguable case that the claim was not statute-barred and that the application judge's discretionary decision to grant leave was reasonable and entitled to deference, particularly given the overlapping oppression action.

The plaintiff in a medical malpractice action sought an extension of time for discoveries.

The defendant Dr. Tayfour cross-moved for dismissal for delay or a stay until costs were paid.

The court dismissed the defendant's motions, finding that the plaintiff's delays were not inordinate or inexcusable, and there was no substantial risk of an unfair trial.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, setting new timelines for discoveries and trial, and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff costs of the motion.

This appeal concerns a class action brought by Mr. Submarine Ltd. franchisees against Maple Leaf Foods Inc. following a 2008 listeria contamination outbreak.

The franchisees claimed damages for economic losses arising from reputational harm allegedly caused by their public association with Maple Leaf during the recall.

The motion judge found that Maple Leaf owed a duty of care to the franchisees both in relation to the supply of fit products and regarding representations about product safety.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while Maple Leaf may owe a duty to supply safe products, this duty is owed to end consumers, not franchisees, and does not extend to protecting against reputational harm or pure economic losses.

The court also found that Maple Leaf's undertaking regarding product safety did not encompass protection of the franchisees' reputational interests.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss or quash the appellant's appeal of a Small Claims Court decision that dismissed his medical negligence action.

The appellant argued the motion judge lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion to dismiss because he had previously presided over a settlement conference in the same matter.

The Divisional Court declined to dismiss or quash the appeal, finding that the jurisdictional argument regarding the settlement conference judge presiding over the motion was not manifestly devoid of merit.

However, the court struck out the majority of the appellant's notice of appeal for being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, leaving only the jurisdictional ground to be argued at the appeal hearing.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal which was dismissed.

The successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $10,000, while the plaintiffs suggested $5,000 was appropriate given the motion was in writing.

The court fixed costs at $6,500 payable forthwith, considering the costs awarded on the underlying contempt motion and the merits of the leave application.