Pino J. Cianfarani

The court considered costs submissions following the successful summary judgment motion of the defendants, Nancy Flagler-Wilburn and F.R. Jordan & Associates Appraisal and Management Services (1977) Inc. The plaintiff, Dennis Paul Rivest, accepted that costs were owed but argued for a significant reduction due to curative steps required by the defendants' failure to plead witness immunity.

The court found some merit in the plaintiff’s argument but rejected the 40% reduction estimate as unfounded.

Ultimately, the court fixed costs at $40,945.80, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and H.S.T., to be paid by the plaintiff within 30 days.

The Corporation of the Township of Augusta brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a claim by residential landowners (plaintiffs) alleging the Township breached a duty of care and acted in bad faith regarding site plan approvals for an adjacent trucking terminal.

The plaintiffs contended the Township's decisions were operational, not policy, and demonstrated bad faith by approving a non-permitted use and later an expanded site plan despite ongoing nuisance complaints.

The court found the Township's decisions were policy decisions, protected by statutory and common law immunity, provided they were made in good faith.

The plaintiffs failed to meet the high burden of proving bad faith, which requires demonstrating arbitrary, capricious, dishonest, or ulterior motives, or actions so patently unreasonable as to exceed governmental discretion.

The court dismissed the claims against the Township, but noted the plaintiffs could still pursue claims against the trucking company for negligence and nuisance.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the automobile defendants for damages under the Family Law Act arising from a motor vehicle accident that injured his mother.

He also sued his mother's former lawyers in the alternative for failing to advance his claim in the original tort action.

The automobile defendants crossclaimed against the lawyer defendants for contribution and indemnity.

The plaintiff moved to discontinue his claim against the lawyer defendants, which was granted.

The lawyer defendants moved to strike the crossclaim.

The court struck the crossclaim without leave to amend, finding that the lawyer defendants and automobile defendants were not concurrent tortfeasors who caused the same damage, and therefore no right of contribution and indemnity existed under the Negligence Act.

This is an appeal of an arbitration decision concerning a priority dispute between two insurance companies, Intact and Gore Mutual, regarding statutory accident benefits for a claimant injured in an Alberta automobile accident.

The claimant, an Alberta resident, submitted an Ontario claim.

The arbitrator found Gore Mutual in greater priority under both Ontario and Alberta law and ordered reimbursement to Intact.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal, finding the arbitrator's decision on Ontario law unreasonable because the claimant was not an "insured person" under Gore Mutual's Ontario policy.

The court also held that the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by determining priority under Alberta law and ordering reimbursement based on it, as the arbitration agreement was limited to Ontario legislation.