Robert Dowhan

The defendant insurance company brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim regarding a fire insurance policy cancellation.

The court struck the claims alleging Charter breaches and conspiracy, as the Charter does not apply to private entities and conspiracy requires multiple actors.

The court also dismissed the personal plaintiff's action because he lacked standing to sue on a contract issued solely to the corporate plaintiff.

However, the court allowed the corporate plaintiff's breach of contract claim to proceed.

Motions regarding corporate representation and security for costs were adjourned.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to substitute the plaintiff's professional corporation for the plaintiff personally, after the expiry of the limitation period.

The action arose from a fire loss claim under an insurance policy.

The court found that naming the plaintiff personally rather than his professional corporation was a misnomer.

Applying the test for misnomer, the court granted the motion, noting that the defendants were aware of the proper plaintiff from the outset and suffered no non-compensable prejudice.

The applicant estate sought a declaration that the respondent insurer had a duty to defend it in an underlying action arising from a fatal ammonia leak.

The insurer denied coverage, relying on a 'Total Pollution Exclusion' in the commercial general liability policy.

The court found the exclusion clause ambiguous, as it failed to define 'pollution' and could reasonably be interpreted by the insured as applying only to traditional environmental pollution, not an accidental indoor leak of ammonia during routine mechanical work.

The application was granted, and the insurer was ordered to defend the estate.

The respondents were successful on an appeal regarding a real estate transaction and sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The appellant argued for a significantly lower amount, citing an offer to settle and access to justice concerns.

The court rejected the appellant's arguments, finding the appeal had no merit and the appellant's actions in pursuing the litigation were abusive.

The court awarded the respondents their full requested costs of $22,441.23.

Homeowners moved for summary judgment seeking coverage under a title insurance policy after discovering that load‑bearing walls had been removed during prior renovations, rendering the home structurally unsafe.

The municipality issued an order requiring temporary shoring under the Building Code Act, 1992, but no permanent remediation order was made and no order was registered on title.

The court held that the title insurance policy insured risks affecting ownership of title rather than the physical condition or market value of the property.

Because the municipal order did not affect title and was not registered on title, the claimed remediation costs were not covered.

The court also held that where no genuine issue requiring trial exists, the court may grant summary judgment against the moving party even if the responding party did not seek it.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the applicants’ entire action.

The moving defendants, including a receiver manager and a bank, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff condominium corporation's claims for construction deficiencies, breach of warranty, oppression, and conspiracy, as well as various cross-claims.

Applying the 'full appreciation' test from Combined Air, the court found that the voluminous and conflicting evidentiary record precluded making dispositive findings on a summary judgment motion.

The motion was dismissed with respect to the plaintiff and the cross-claiming architect, and the action was directed to proceed to trial.