Rachel Cooper

The appellant's greenhouse tomato crop was destroyed by excessive carbon monoxide emissions resulting from a malfunctioning boiler and monitor.

The respondent insurer denied coverage, relying on the policy's exhaust gas exclusion and machinery breakdown exception.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the respondent.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in his causation analysis by focusing solely on the immediate cause of the loss (carbon monoxide) rather than determining the effective cause or causes in a series of events.

The motion judge also erred by failing to address the onus of proof and make necessary factual findings regarding the machinery breakdown exception.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for trial, as genuine issues remained regarding causation and the application of policy exclusions.

The plaintiffs sought court approval for the settlement of claims on behalf of two minor plaintiffs arising from a fatal motorcoach bus collision.

The court approved the settlement amounts, the proposed solicitor-client account based on quantum meruit, and the payment of the net settlement funds to the minor plaintiffs' father, who resides in China, rather than the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice.

The main action and all crossclaims were dismissed without costs.

The plaintiffs, who were passengers on a tour bus that crashed on Highway 401, sought court approval for the settlement of claims on behalf of two parties under disability: an elderly woman who suffered a severe traumatic brain injury and a minor child.

The plaintiffs also sought approval of the solicitor-client accounts, disbursements, and a proposal to have the net settlement funds managed by family members in China, where the plaintiffs reside.

The court found the settlements, legal fees, and proposed fund management plans to be reasonable and in the best interests of the parties under disability, and granted the requested relief.

The plaintiff and defendants brought various motions in a motor vehicle accident tort claim.

The plaintiff sought to compel answers to a refused discovery question regarding the defendant Uhaul's pre-litigation investigation.

The court dismissed this request, finding the investigation was protected by litigation privilege as its dominant purpose was in contemplation of litigation.

The defendants Uhaul and Manbauman sought leave to amend their Statements of Defence to allege that the plaintiff and his brother engaged in a staged collision for insurance fraud, based on surprising discovery evidence from Manbauman.

The court granted leave to amend, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff.

This decision concerns the approval of a pro-rata apportionment of insurance proceeds, legal fees, and disbursements among multiple plaintiffs in six related actions arising from a 2018 motor coach collision in Ontario involving Chinese tourists.

The court reviews the collaborative process among counsel, the narrowing of liability to two defendants, and the reasonableness of the proposed settlement distribution.

The court also addresses its jurisdiction to grant the requested relief, the sufficiency of evidence supporting the motion, and the process for future motions involving parties under disability.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add Edward Ouellette as a defendant and substitute Stephanie Ouellette as the child plaintiff's litigation guardian.

The court expressed a preliminary view that it was problematic for Edward Ouellette to remain a plaintiff asserting Family Law Act (FLA) damages while simultaneously being added as a defendant against whom claims of independent negligence were advanced.

Citing common law principles, the court noted that a person cannot sue themselves for damages based on their own negligence.

The motion was adjourned to allow plaintiff's counsel to consider the court's concerns and propose revised pleadings, with costs reserved.

The third party, Eaton Industries (Canada) Company, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the third party claim of the London Transit Commission (LTC) on the basis that it was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The LTC's third party claim alleged environmental contamination caused by Eaton's predecessors.

The court found that the LTC had actual or ought to have had knowledge of its claim against Eaton by May 22, 2013, when it was served with the plaintiff's statement of claim, and failed to rebut the presumptive limitation period.

The court dismissed the LTC's arguments for a separate limitation period for other damages, concluding all claims were statute-barred.

The plaintiffs sought leave under s. 12 of the Evidence Act to call four additional expert witnesses (three occupational therapists and one life care planner) in a personal injury action, beyond the three medical experts and one accountant already intended.

The defendants opposed, arguing duplication and unnecessary expense.

The court granted leave for two of the four additional experts: Ms. Schmidt (occupational therapist) and Mr. Smit (life care planner), but limited Mr. Smit's evidence to costs.

The court denied leave for Mr. Campbell and Mr. Tyrer, finding their evidence duplicative as both were occupational therapists and vocational assessors co-authoring reports on employability.

The plaintiff bank sued to recover $494,425 obtained by the defendant Vincenzo Storr through fraudulent credit card cash advances.

The plaintiff sought to trace the funds into the accounts of Vincenzo's family members and related entities, arguing they were subject to a constructive trust.

The court found that Vincenzo obtained the funds by fraud and that the family members who received the funds were liable under the doctrine of knowing receipt, as the circumstances ought to have put them on inquiry.

The court granted judgment against Vincenzo and the family members who received the funds, while dismissing the claims against the corporate entities.