Robert Wilfred Walter Dowhan

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant insurer to answer refusals from an examination for discovery and for leave to examine a second representative.

The action arose from the defendant's denial of the plaintiff's water loss claim on the basis that it was staged.

The plaintiff sought extensive disclosure regarding other similar claims denied by the defendant involving members of the same ethnic community, alleging racial profiling and bad faith.

The court ordered the defendant to produce its template denial letter and answer specific questions regarding any connection between the plaintiff's claim and the other claims.

However, the court denied the plaintiff's overbroad requests for the entire investigative files of the other claims, as the defendant was not relying on a conspiracy defence.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's request to examine a second representative, finding the first representative was not uninformed or evasive.

The defendants in a nuisance action brought a motion for leave to bring a motion and for an order to inspect the plaintiffs' property under Rule 32 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The parties were involved in two separate actions regarding a dispute over encroaching earth and water.

The defendants had previously been ordered to seek leave before bringing further motions due to past intransigence.

The court granted leave, finding the defendants had not been frivolous or vexatious in recent years.

The court also granted the request for inspection, allowing the defendants' experts to visually inspect the plaintiffs' property, as it was necessary for the proper determination of the issues and would not cause prejudice.

Costs of $23,000 were awarded to the moving parties.

The plaintiff, a wedding and convention center, sued its insurer for damages caused by a major rainstorm, claiming under sewer back-up and flood endorsements, and for business interruption, extra-contractual, and punitive damages.

The court found that only the sewer back-up endorsement applied, for which the policy limit of $500,000 had already been paid.

The flood endorsement did not apply as the damage was caused by "Surface Water" (rain pooling on the ground), which was explicitly excluded and not covered by the endorsement's definition of "flood" (overflow of a body of water).

The business interruption claim was dismissed because the business did not cease operations, and any alleged loss of revenue was attributed to the plaintiff's decision to remain open against the insurer's advice to mitigate damages.

Claims for extra-contractual and punitive damages were also dismissed due to the absence of a breach of contract by the insurer and lack of exceptional misconduct.

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.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time for service of its Notice of Action and Statement of Claim nunc pro tunc to February 14, 2017, following a two-month delay.

The defendant insurer opposed, arguing prejudice due to the expiry of the policy's one-year limitation period and an inadequate explanation for the delay.

The court found the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation (inadvertence and desire not to disrupt settlement negotiations) and successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice, noting the insurer had early notice and access to information.

The court clarified that issuing a Notice of Action within the limitation period stops the limitation clock, mitigating prejudice from subsequent late service of the Statement of Claim.

The motion was granted, validating service and ordering the defendant to file a Statement of Defence.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision interpreting a landlord-tenant agreement as a complete release of the tenant from liability for fire damage.

The appellants argued the release applied only to the tenant personally but preserved a subrogated claim by the landlord's insurer against the tenant's insurer.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's interpretation, finding that releasing the tenant precluded any subrogated claim against the tenant's insurer.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The defendant, a former tenant, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for damages caused by a fire in his apartment.

The defendant argued that a letter from the plaintiffs, combined with an agreement to terminate his tenancy, constituted a release from liability for the fire.

The plaintiffs contended that the letter was not a release or was only a partial release, preserving their right to pursue a subrogated claim through their insurer.

The court found that the letter and termination agreement, read as an integrated whole, plainly released the defendant from liability for the fire, interpreting the phrase "damages will be dealt with between the insurance companies" to mean without the defendant's involvement.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiffs' action was dismissed with costs.

The appellant buyer appealed a Small Claims Court judgment dismissing his claim for the return of a $10,000 deposit and awarding the deposit to the respondent sellers as damages for anticipatory breach.

The buyer had repudiated the agreement of purchase and sale after a pre-closing visit, alleging undisclosed prior water damage to the basement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual conclusion that the buyer failed to prove the existence of prior water damage or misrepresentation by the sellers.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for well contamination, the court determined costs.

The plaintiff conceded liability for the defendant's partial indemnity costs but disputed liability for the third parties' costs.

Applying the principles from Guarantee Co. of North America, the court found it fair to order the plaintiff to pay the successful third parties' costs, as the main issue litigated was between the plaintiff and the third party who applied the biosolids.

The court fixed total costs at $70,000, apportioned among the defendant and two third parties, noting that the costs claimed were disproportionate to the modest nature of the case and criticizing the parties' failure to make reasonable settlement offers.

The plaintiff claimed her water well was contaminated by municipal sewage waste (biosolids) applied to her neighbor's farmland, alleging nuisance and negligence.

The defendant brought a third-party claim against the farm lessee and the biosolids applicator.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding that she failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the biosolids application caused the well contamination.

Crucially, no E. coli., the primary indicator of sewage contamination, was detected in any water samples, despite the presence of other bacteria commonly found in the natural environment.

The court also dismissed the third-party action.

The plaintiffs, DK Manufacturing Group Ltd. and S.G. Investments Group Ltd., sought insurance proceeds and damages for bad faith from Co-operators General Insurance Company following a fire and water damage incident.

Co-operators brought a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the claims for insurance monies were resolved by a binding appraisal process and that a one-year contractual limitation period barred other claims.

The court found that Form AB, containing contractual statutory conditions including a one-year limitation period and appraisal process, applied to both policies.

The appraisal awards were binding, dismissing claims for further insurance monies.

However, the one-year contractual limitation period did not apply to the extra-contractual bad faith claims, which are governed by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The defendant Constantine Glinos brought a motion for summary judgment on his cross-claim against Chicago Title Insurance Company.

Glinos, a lawyer, sought indemnity for legal costs incurred defending a professional negligence claim brought by purchasers (Small and Kondic) related to a real estate transaction.

The purchasers had also sued Chicago Title under a title insurance policy.

Glinos argued that Chicago Title's indemnity obligation to lawyers, established through an agreement with the Law Society of Upper Canada, applied because the purchasers' claims "arose under the title insurance policy" based on the pleadings rule from Stewart Title Guarantee Co. v. Zeppieri.

Chicago Title denied liability, arguing Glinos's alleged material misrepresentation in the application invalidated the policy and that the claim was for professional malpractice, not under the policy.

The court granted summary judgment to Glinos, finding that the purchasers' claims, as pleaded, arose under the title insurance policy, triggering Chicago Title's indemnity obligation for Glinos's defence costs.

The court also found no material misrepresentation that would invalidate the policy.

The plaintiff sued former employees and related entities for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and misuse of customer relationships in the computer memory resale business.

The court held that a restrictive covenant signed after employment began was unenforceable for lack of fresh consideration, but upheld a separate six-month non-solicitation clause binding on the other employee.

The court further found that the senior salesperson was a key employee owing a limited post-employment fiduciary duty not to solicit former customers, and that both brothers worked in concert to solicit customers before the consent order issued.

The court rejected the claim that post-order responses to customer requests for bids constituted solicitation.

Damages of $132,581.00 plus prejudgment interest were awarded.

The applicant filed Requests for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking to dismiss her human rights application against the respondent condominium corporation and property management company.

The respondents agreed to the dismissal but requested that the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant to prevent future re-litigation.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to dismiss the application in its entirety, noting that this dismissal effectively prevents the applicant from re-litigating the substance of the application in the future.

The scheduled hearing was cancelled.

The appellants purchased a home and acquired a title insurance policy from the respondent.

Years later, they discovered a previous owner had removed load-bearing walls without a building permit, resulting in a municipal order to remedy an unsafe building.

The respondent denied coverage under the title policy.

The motion judge dismissed the appellants' summary judgment motion, finding the title remained marketable and that municipal work orders must be registered on title to trigger coverage.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the standard of review for standard form insurance contracts is correctness.

The Court found the motion judge erred in his interpretation of the policy and the nature of off-title defects, concluding that the unpermitted construction rendered the title unmarketable and was covered under the policy.

Following a partial summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff finding an implied warranty of fitness in a contract, the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs.

The defendant argued the claimed costs were excessive and should be reduced but did not provide its own bill of costs or detailed outline.

The court found the plaintiff had justified the claimed costs and that the amount was fair, reasonable, and within the expectations of the unsuccessful party.

The court therefore awarded the full amount of costs sought.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment arising from flood damage allegedly caused by the failure of a flex hose connection installed by a plumbing contractor.

The motion raised two issues: whether the contractor’s contract contained an implied warranty that supplied materials would be of good quality and reasonably fit for their intended purpose, and whether that warranty had been breached.

The court held that contracts for work and materials generally include an implied warranty of fitness unless excluded by the circumstances, and found that such a warranty existed in the contract between the parties.

However, competing expert theories and unresolved factual disputes about the cause of the failure created genuine issues requiring a trial.

Partial summary judgment was granted only on the existence of the implied warranty, with the breach and negligence claims to proceed to trial.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding against her condominium corporation filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of various documents and permission to add three new witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the production requests, finding that the requested board minutes, reserve fund report, and electrical safety correspondence were either not requested in a timely manner or lacked arguable relevance to the issues in dispute, particularly the accommodation of the applicant's mobility scooter.

The request to add witnesses was also denied as the proposed witnesses lacked relevant information.

The Tribunal further directed that the respondents' motion to dismiss for no reasonable prospect of success would be heard after the close of the applicant's evidence.

The plaintiff sought a declaration arising from a 50/50 partnership agreement to purchase an investment property.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff had agreed to withdraw in exchange for the return of his share of the deposit.

The court rejected that position on the evidence, finding it improbable that the plaintiff would abandon a lucrative venture and concluding that the surrounding circumstances supported the plaintiff's account.

The court granted a declaration that the plaintiff held a 50 percent ownership interest in the property, subject to payment of an amount to be determined by the local Referee, including assessment of purchase and carrying costs.

The plaintiffs settled wrongful dismissal claims with the defendant, which included confidentiality provisions.

A court order directed the settlement to be filed.

The plaintiffs filed the settlement agreements for costs submissions.

The defendant claimed this breached confidentiality and sought to appeal a judge's endorsement that the filing was 'required by law'.

The appeal was quashed as the endorsement was not an order, or alternatively was interlocutory.

The defendant moved to set aside the quashing order and brought a motion for contempt.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the endorsement was not an order and there was no merit to the contempt claim.

The court ordered the settlement documents sealed and awarded substantial indemnity costs against the defendant.