Richard T. Knott

The plaintiff was injured in a slip and fall on snow accumulated near a curb in a commercial parking lot.

The property owner and the snow removal contractor brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

Applying the framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the property owner's liability, as there were questions about the parking lot design and the adequacy of the snow removal plan.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against the snow removal contractor, finding it had fulfilled its contractual obligations.

Following a wrongful dismissal trial in which the plaintiff recovered modest damages equivalent to three months’ salary, the court addressed costs.

The action had been brought in the Superior Court although the recovery fell within Small Claims Court jurisdiction.

The court found that the plaintiff had expanded a simple wrongful dismissal claim with unfounded allegations of conspiracy and inducement, unnecessarily increasing complexity and cost.

Concluding that the proceeding should have been brought in Small Claims Court and that the defendants had been put to unnecessary expense, the court denied the successful plaintiff any costs and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs to the defendants.

The defendants brought summary judgment motions in a civil action while the plaintiffs brought a motion to amend the statement of claim.

During the hearing, the parties did not address whether the defendants intended their summary judgment motions to apply to the relief sought in any amended pleading should the amendment be granted.

The court directed counsel to arrange a brief appearance or provide written submissions addressing this procedural issue.

The endorsement addresses scheduling and clarification of the scope of the summary judgment motions.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of an action arising from denial of insurance coverage following an alleged vandalism incident at the plaintiffs’ retail business.

The insurer argued the claim was barred by a one-year contractual limitation period derived from fire insurance statutory conditions under the Insurance Act.

The court held that the policy was a multi-peril policy in which fire was only an incidental peril and therefore the fire insurance statutory conditions did not apply.

The court further found that the policy language did not clearly or validly contract out of the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed and the action was allowed to proceed.