Pierce

The plaintiff sought a declaration that she suffered a catastrophic impairment following a 2013 motor vehicle accident, entitling her to enhanced statutory accident benefits.

The defendant insurer argued her impairment stemmed from pre-existing mental health and addiction issues.

The court applied the 'but for' test for causation, finding that despite her pre-existing vulnerabilities, the accident triggered a conversion disorder that catastrophically impaired her functioning.

The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to attendant care benefits even if she had not actually paid for them out of pocket, as requiring an insured to finance their own care would defeat the remedial purpose of the legislation.

The plaintiff and defendant, both financial advisors, entered into a partnership agreement.

The defendant's licence was later suspended for misconduct.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for return of moneys, and the defendant counterclaimed.

The plaintiff then issued a third party claim for contribution and indemnity against their former employers, alleging they knew of the defendant's misconduct.

The third parties moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred under s. 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court granted the motion, holding that s. 18 creates an absolute two-year limitation period for contribution and indemnity claims that is not subject to discoverability principles.

Even if discoverability applied, the plaintiff had discovered the claim before the limitation period expired.

The plaintiff brought an action claiming $300,000 for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty arising from a failed restaurant franchise.

The defendants did not appear at trial.

The court found that the individual defendant did not owe a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff's brother in his capacity as a shareholder of the corporate defendant.

While the court provisionally assessed damages for breach of contract against the corporate defendant at $121,948.36, it ultimately dismissed the claim as statute-barred.

The cause of action arose in 1997, and the statement of claim was not issued until 2005, well beyond the applicable six-year limitation period under the former Limitations Act.

The mother brought a motion for various interim orders in a family law proceeding following the parties' separation.

The court granted the mother interim custody of the children, noting the high conflict and the father's guilty plea to assaulting the mother.

The court also granted a restraining order against the father, ordered him to maintain health benefits for the mother, and awarded interim child and spousal support.

The mother's request for an interlocutory injunction for exclusive possession of a vehicle was dismissed as her pleadings lacked the required undertaking as to damages and she failed to meet the RJR-MacDonald test.