Rikin Morzaria

The applicant's employer was investigated by the Ontario Securities Commission.

The applicant was summoned to give evidence but refused to answer questions about their employment, citing a confidentiality clause in their employment agreement.

The applicant applied for directions and a declaration that the information was privileged.

The Commission cross-applied for declarations that the applicant must answer the questions.

The court dismissed the application and allowed the cross-application, finding that the information did not meet the Wigmore criteria for case-by-case privilege and that the applicant was required to attend the examination and answer all relevant questions, subject only to valid claims of privilege.

The defendant insurer, Compagnie d'Assurance Traders Generale ("Traders"), brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that Justin Gough operated Nancy Gough's vehicle with implied consent, thereby making Nancy vicariously liable under the Highway Traffic Act and negating the plaintiff's uninsured automobile claim against Traders.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that "consent" under s. 192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act requires a positive conferral of permission to possess the vehicle, not merely a failure to prevent unauthorized use.

The evidence showed no express or implied consent for Justin to drive the vehicle, as his license was suspended, and he took the keys without permission.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the plaintiffs' claim under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, which was added after one defendant transferred property to his wife for no consideration following a personal injury action.

The plaintiffs sought damages exceeding insurance policy limits.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a fraudulent conveyance claim can be pursued before a judgment is obtained in the main action and that joining the claims avoids multiplicity of proceedings, with the trial judge having discretion to manage the trial process to prevent prejudice.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff pedestrian was awarded damages less than the defendant's Rule 49 offer to settle, the court determined the costs payable.

The plaintiff was awarded costs up to the date of the offer, and the defendant was awarded costs thereafter.

The court reduced the defendant's costs due to a late concession on liability and the improper testimony of the defendant's expert witness, resulting in a net costs award payable to the plaintiff.

The moving defendant sought summary judgment dismissing a product liability action arising from a catastrophic motor vehicle accident in which the driver suffered quadriplegia after the driver’s seatback collapsed during a rollover.

The motion argued that the defendant seat assembler had no role in designing or manufacturing the allegedly defective recliner mechanism supplied by another manufacturer.

The court found that much of the evidence relied upon by the moving party was inadmissible, including transcripts from unrelated proceedings, discovery evidence of its own witness, and unsworn materials.

Applying the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court held that it lacked the necessary admissible evidence to make findings of fact or fairly resolve the dispute on a summary judgment motion.

The court declined to exercise expanded fact‑finding powers or conduct a mini‑trial, particularly given the presence of a jury notice and the possibility that negligence could be inferred from circumstantial evidence.

The moving defendants sought a determination that the substantive law governing liability for a skiing accident occurring in Colorado should be the law of Colorado rather than Ontario.

The plaintiff argued that Ontario law should apply because the parties’ relationship, contractual documents, and supervisory duties arose in Ontario.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Tolofson v. Jensen, the court held that the lex loci delicti rule governs tort claims and that the substantive law of the place where the tort occurred generally applies.

The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting departure from that rule despite the parties’ Ontario connections.

The liability issues, including negligence, standard of care, causation, and contributory negligence, were therefore to be determined under Colorado law.