Reeva M. Finkel

In a certified class action arising from a fire and explosion in an underground electrical vault at a residential complex, the defendant utility appealed a Master’s order compelling answers to refusals given during examinations for discovery.

The appeal concerned whether the defendant was required to disclose details of internal and expert investigations and to answer questions regarding its theory of causation.

The court held that the defendant failed to establish a factual basis for litigation privilege over investigative information and expert findings.

The court further held that under Rule 31.06(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party must disclose expert findings, opinions, and conclusions at discovery unless it undertakes not to call the expert at trial.

The Master’s order requiring answers to discovery questions and disclosure of investigative information was upheld.

Toronto Hydro appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim against a property owner for unpaid electricity bills incurred by unauthorized tenants.

The trial judge found the owner set up the account but held there was no implied term requiring him to pay, and that Toronto Hydro failed to mitigate its losses.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the statutory framework and the Distribution System Code embed Conditions of Service into all implied contracts for electricity, making the owner liable.

The court also found the trial judge erred on mitigation, as statutory provisions prevented the termination of vital services during the winter months.

Judgment was granted to Toronto Hydro for the full arrears.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding it $203,000 in damages for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from mortgage advances.

The appellant sought the full amount of the mortgage advances ($2.7 million).

The respondents cross-appealed, arguing the action should be dismissed due to novation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied a common sense view of causation in determining that the substitution of a new debtor broke the chain of causation, and that the novation argument failed because the appellant's claim was based on the Mortgage Administration Agreement, not the loan itself.