Robert James Clayton

This case involved a reference to determine the valuation of an insurance loss following a water damage incident at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO).

The applicants, property insurers (HIROC, HML, FM), sought to recover the amount they paid to CHEO from the respondent, a boiler and machinery insurer (RSA).

The court found that the applicants' valuation was based on their own replacement cost policies, which differed from RSA's policy mandating repair or replacement with property of 'like kind, capacity, size and quality.' The court accepted RSA's valuation of $104,541.85, which was significantly lower than the applicants' claim of $732,031.41, as it was the only valuation that properly applied the RSA policy's terms.

Following a lengthy condominium dispute trial involving claims of solicitor negligence, construction defects, and condominium governance issues, the court addressed the allocation of costs among multiple parties.

The plaintiff succeeded against the solicitor defendant but failed against several other defendants, including the condominium corporation and property management company.

Applying the principles under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed reasonable expectations, proportionality, litigation conduct, and Rule 49 settlement offers.

The court issued a Sanderson order requiring the negligent solicitor defendant to pay the costs of the successful condominium defendant, while also apportioning part of the successful property manager’s costs between the plaintiff and the solicitor defendant.

Substantial costs awards were fixed reflecting the complexity and length of the litigation.