R. Lee Akazaki

Following the dismissal of a summary judgment motion brought by certain defendants, the plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The responding defendants did not object to the quantum requested.

The court found the plaintiff’s requested costs reasonable and ordered payment accordingly.

The decision also corrected a typographical error in the court’s earlier reasons for judgment regarding which party amended a statement of defence.

Contractors and subcontractors moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a negligence and property damage claim arising from a water leak during mechanical system upgrades to a commercial building.

They argued that a builder’s risk insurance obligation contained in a long‑term land lease between the building owner and its landlord created a subrogation bar protecting them as third‑party beneficiaries.

The court held that the construction contract governing the work contained an “entire agreement” clause and expressly allocated responsibility for builder’s risk insurance to the contractor.

Because the defendants were strangers to the land lease and had neither relied upon nor bargained for its provisions, the lease could not override the later construction contract or confer a defence through the privity exception.

The insurance provision in the land lease therefore did not bar the plaintiff’s action.

The appellant brought an action seeking rescission of a property sale and damages.

He requested a bilingual proceeding under s. 126 of the Courts of Justice Act.

On the date of the respondents' summary judgment motion, no bilingual judge was available.

The motion judge refused an adjournment, finding the appellant was using language rights to delay, and dismissed the action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the right to a bilingual proceeding is quasi-constitutional and not subject to judicial discretion to deny based on perceived abuse of process.

The matter was remitted to a bilingual judge.

The appellants appealed an order striking portions of their statement of defence and counterclaim which claimed equitable set-off against the respondent personally.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no connection between the struck paragraphs and the allegations of set-off.

However, the Court deleted a paragraph of the order that appeared to prohibit future amendments, clarifying it was merely commentary.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The insurer sought an assessment of its expenses following a successful arbitration where the insured was found liable to pay the insurer's expenses under section 282(11) of the Insurance Act.

The arbitrator awarded the insurer its legal fees at the Legal Aid rate rather than the requested $150 per hour, noting the higher rate is only available to insured persons.

The arbitrator denied the insurer's claims for the costs of medical expert reports, finding they were obtained as insurer's medicals under section 42(1) of the Schedule rather than as expert reports for arbitration.

Claims for surveillance expenses and standby investigators were also denied for lack of statutory authority.

The insurer was awarded a total of $8,589.46 for legal fees and $1,461.09 for disbursements, plus GST.

The applicant sought caregiver benefits following a minor motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological impairments substantially disabled her from caring for her young daughter.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim, finding the applicant lacked credibility and failed to provide objective medical evidence of a substantial inability to perform caregiving duties.

Surveillance evidence and inconsistencies in testimony further undermined her claim that she incurred caregiving expenses.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's arbitration expenses due to the unmeritorious nature of the claim.

The appellant appealed an order that struck her claim based on issue estoppel arising from a prior solicitor's assessment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the assessment officer made no finding on the question of negligence, either explicitly or implicitly.

Therefore, issue estoppel did not preclude the appellant from alleging negligence or breach of contract in her subsequent action against the respondent solicitor.

The respondent's motion was dismissed, except for the portion seeking to strike the jury notice, which was remitted to the Superior Court on consent.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits, claiming she was injured as a passenger in a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the applicant was not in the vehicle at the time of the collision.

In a preliminary issue hearing, the arbitrator assessed the credibility of the applicant, her sister, and the driver.

Despite some inconsistencies regarding the time of the accident and weekend plans, the arbitrator found on a balance of probabilities that the applicant was a passenger in the vehicle and suffered an impairment, thereby meeting the definition of an accident.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the interpretation of a lease, which arose as a special case under Rule 22 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the lower court judge's interpretation of the parties' intentions based solely on the lease provisions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.