Robert Stefanelli

The appellant challenged an order striking her action for real estate commission claims against a listing agent, a brokerage, and the brokerage's insurer.

The court held that the farm property commission claim was barred by the earlier Small Claims Court decision and that no viable claim lay against the insurer under s. 132 of the Insurance Act or the pleading rules.

However, the court found the motion judge erred in treating the commercial property commission claim as res judicata because the earlier decision had expressly excluded that claim from adjudication.

The statement of claim was struck, but leave to amend was granted solely for claims relating to the commercial property and any other properties to which the agreement might apply.

The court also fixed and varied costs, including a reduced costs award below and a modest appeal costs award to the self-represented appellant against one respondent.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against the Town of East Gwillimbury, alleging it failed to enforce zoning by-laws against his neighbour's property.

The defendant municipality brought a motion to strike the 202-page draft amended statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Applying the Anns/Cooper test, the court held that a municipality owes no private law duty of care to a ratepayer to enforce its by-laws.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed without leave to amend.

The moving party sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal, and leave to appeal, two prior decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion.

No costs were awarded as the responding party did not provide costs submissions.

The insured property owner appealed the dismissal of its claim for coverage following a wall collapse, while the insurer appealed the finding of coverage for a subsequent arson fire at the same vacant building.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals.

The wall collapse was not proven to be a fortuitous event.

For the fire loss, the insurer was bound by promissory estoppel preventing reliance on a vacancy exclusion, and its unilateral attempt to amend the policy to exclude arson was invalid under s. 124 of the Insurance Act for lack of written consent.

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.

In a proposed class action against a religious organization regarding alleged child sexual abuse, the defendant brought a motion to strike portions of two affidavits filed by the plaintiffs for the certification motion.

The court struck paragraphs from one affidavit that referenced foreign inquiries into the organization, finding them irrelevant and prejudicial.

The court declined to strike a paragraph from the second affidavit, finding it relevant to the proceedings.