Pierre Champagne

The defendant, Robert Grenier, sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order setting aside a default judgment but imposing strict conditions and awarding costs to the insurer, Aviva.

The default judgment was entered after Grenier failed to defend an action arising from a 2001 motor vehicle accident.

The motion judge set aside the default judgment but imposed conditions restricting Grenier's ability to deal with his assets in Quebec and ordered him to pay costs thrown away.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's discretionary decision.

The appellant appealed a decision denying his motion to amend his statement of defence to withdraw an admission.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge applied the incorrect legal standard, holding the appellant to the pre-Antipas standard rather than the reformulated three-part test.

The appellant provided a reasonable explanation for the change of position, stating he only realized the plaintiff had not advanced the mortgage funds upon reading the summary judgment materials.

The Court held that the proposed amendment raised a triable issue and that there was no non-compensable prejudice to the respondent.

The appeal was allowed and the appellant was permitted to amend his pleadings.

The respondents, Quebec residents, were injured in an Ontario motor vehicle accident with an uninsured driver.

They obtained a judgment in Ontario, but the respondent Katia's claim under Quebec's no-fault scheme was denied.

The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund appealed an order requiring it to pay the Ontario judgment, arguing that s. 25(2) of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act precluded payment because no amount was payable under Quebec law.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 25(2) only requires the foreign jurisdiction to provide substantially similar recourse and does not require a fact-specific determination of entitlement under foreign law.

The appeal was dismissed regarding Katia's claim but allowed regarding Michel's Family Law Act claim, as Quebec law provides no corresponding right.

Following the release of the main judgment, the court received written submissions on costs.

The appellant achieved substantial success on the appeal and was entitled to costs.

However, the court reduced the appellant's bill of costs by $15,000 for widening the scope of the appeal with unsuccessful compensatory damages issues, by $15,000 for excessive factum preparation time, and by $4,364 for excessive counsel fees.

Costs were fixed at $56,770.77 on a partial indemnity scale.

The respondent's dairy barn and livestock were destroyed in a fire.

The appellant insurer paid over $1.17 million under the policy but disputed other aspects of the claim, including loss of livestock, loss of earnings, and damage to silos.

At trial, the jury awarded the respondent an additional $488,389 in compensatory damages and $750,000 in punitive damages for the insurer's breach of its duty of good faith.

The insurer appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the punitive damages award.

The Court held that while the insurer breached its duty to act fairly and in good faith by failing to promptly pay amounts it reasonably believed were owing, its conduct was not so outrageous or extreme as to warrant punishment.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing its action for payment for installing a subsurface drainage system and awarding damages on the respondent's counterclaim for crop losses due to improper drainage.

The trial judge found the system inadequate due to soil conditions, the filter used, and installation in wet conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable error in the trial judge's factual findings.

The Court also upheld the damages award, noting the limitation of liability clause was not incorporated into the agreement or pleaded.