Richard Oliver

The defendants, Toronto Hydro and the City of Toronto, sought leave to issue third-party claims against the plaintiffs (a building owner and two tenants) and various former owners and property managers for contribution and indemnity following a fire in a hydro vault.

The plaintiffs opposed the motions, arguing that covenants to insure in their leases shielded them from liability to each other, rendering the third-party claims legally untenable under the Supreme Court's decisions in T. Eaton Co. and Giffels.

The court granted leave in part, allowing claims against parties in capacities not shielded by the insurance covenants (e.g., former owners, property managers), but dismissed the motions regarding claims against the landlord and tenant in their capacities governed by the leases.

The court also rejected the argument that covenants to insure should be treated as exclusion clauses subject to public policy exceptions.

The appellant, acquitted of all charges after a jury trial, appealed a summary judgment dismissing his civil claim against the Toronto Police Services Board and police officers for negligent investigation and perjury.

The motion judge found several claims statute-barred and determined the appellant adduced no evidence capable of supporting the remaining claims.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that while acquittal is a necessary condition for a negligent investigation claim, it is not sufficient; there must also be evidence of a breach of the standard of care of a reasonable police officer.

The appellant failed to adduce such evidence.

The police defendants moved to strike a statement of claim brought by a self‑represented plaintiff following his conviction for assault.

The plaintiff alleged police negligence, wrongful detention, Charter violations, and malicious prosecution arising from his arrest and investigation.

The court held that the claim was an attempt to relitigate issues determined in the criminal proceedings, where the plaintiff had been convicted and his appeal dismissed.

Because a conviction establishes that the charge was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the plaintiff could not establish essential elements of malicious prosecution or lack of reasonable grounds.

The court concluded the action disclosed no reasonable cause of action and constituted an abuse of process.