R. Dowhan

The plaintiffs sued their insurer and its adjuster following a fire loss, seeking additional compensation beyond what was awarded in a statutory appraisal process.

The defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss the claims related to the appraised building and valuable papers losses, and to strike the claims against the adjuster personally.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motions, holding that an umpire's appraisal decision under the Insurance Act is final and binding absent judicial review, and that the adjuster could not be held personally liable as he acted entirely within the scope of his employment.

The plaintiff sought costs of $13,983.34 on a partial indemnity scale following a motion to compel answers to undertakings and refusals, and a dismissed motion to examine a second representative.

The defendant sought costs of $26,144.52.

The court found the refusals motion was necessary to progress the litigation, but noted the plaintiff's requests were overbroad.

Balancing the divided success and the conduct of both parties, the court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $3,500.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant insurer to answer refusals from an examination for discovery and for leave to examine a second representative.

The action arose from the defendant's denial of the plaintiff's water loss claim on the basis that it was staged.

The plaintiff sought extensive disclosure regarding other similar claims denied by the defendant involving members of the same ethnic community, alleging racial profiling and bad faith.

The court ordered the defendant to produce its template denial letter and answer specific questions regarding any connection between the plaintiff's claim and the other claims.

However, the court denied the plaintiff's overbroad requests for the entire investigative files of the other claims, as the defendant was not relying on a conspiracy defence.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's request to examine a second representative, finding the first representative was not uninformed or evasive.

The defendants in a nuisance action brought a motion for leave to bring a motion and for an order to inspect the plaintiffs' property under Rule 32 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The parties were involved in two separate actions regarding a dispute over encroaching earth and water.

The defendants had previously been ordered to seek leave before bringing further motions due to past intransigence.

The court granted leave, finding the defendants had not been frivolous or vexatious in recent years.

The court also granted the request for inspection, allowing the defendants' experts to visually inspect the plaintiffs' property, as it was necessary for the proper determination of the issues and would not cause prejudice.

Costs of $23,000 were awarded to the moving parties.