Ryan D. Garrett

The plaintiffs sued the quarry owner (Miller Group) and the blasting operator (Sernoskies) for damages caused by a fly rock incident.

The plaintiffs and the operator entered into a Pierringer settlement agreement, releasing the operator and restricting claims against the owner to several liability.

The owner cross-claimed against the operator, alleging an implied indemnity agreement.

The motion judge dismissed the owner's cross-claim and its motion for summary judgment against the plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the owner's appeal, finding the motion judge erred by failing to address the threshold issue of whether an implied indemnity agreement existed, which could eliminate the owner's liability entirely.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court for determination.

Following a successful motion permitting amendment of pleadings to remove claims against settling defendants pursuant to a Pierringer agreement, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The settling defendants sought costs as the successful party, while another defendant argued each party should bear their own costs.

The court held that the plaintiffs and the settling defendants were the successful parties and that the usual rule of costs to the successful party should apply.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded after assessing the reasonableness of the parties’ submitted cost outlines.

A retail tenant sought a declaration that its landlord’s insurer owed it a duty to defend a slip‑and‑fall action arising from an icy parking lot outside the tenant’s store.

The lease required the landlord to maintain common areas and to include the tenant as an additional insured under its comprehensive general liability policy.

The insurer argued that some allegations concerned the tenant’s operational conduct and sought to introduce extrinsic evidence about the tenant’s loading practices.

The court held that such evidence was inadmissible because it addressed issues in the underlying action and could prejudice the insured.

On a proper reading of the pleadings, the claim’s true nature was a slip‑and‑fall in a parking lot risk covered by the policy, triggering the insurer’s duty to defend.

Following a successful insurance coverage application concerning a duty to defend a personal injury action under a CGL policy, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicants sought 75% of their full indemnity costs, while the respondent argued that no costs should be awarded due to a prior settlement offer proposing payment of 50% of costs.

The court rejected the respondent’s position and confirmed that the applicants, as the successful party, were entitled to costs.

Applying the principles of proportionality and the usual partial indemnity approach under Rule 58, the court assessed costs at $4,500 payable by the respondent.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to remove settling defendants following a Pierringer agreement and to restrict their remaining claim to nuisance against the non-settling defendants.

The non-settling defendants opposed and sought judgment dismissing the action, arguing the settlement terms barred the plaintiffs from continuing proceedings where contribution or indemnity claims existed.

The court held that amendments under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure should be granted absent non-compensable prejudice.

The court found that the non-settling defendants retained their substantive right to pursue contribution or indemnity through declaratory relief and that any prejudice could be addressed in costs.

The amendment was permitted and the non-settling defendants’ motion for judgment was dismissed.

The applicants sought an order requiring their insurer to defend or indemnify defence costs in a negligence action arising from a slip-and-fall on shopping centre premises.

The applicants were additional insureds under a commercial general liability policy issued to a snow removal contractor, with coverage limited to operations performed by that contractor under a snow removal agreement.

The court held that some allegations in the underlying statement of claim potentially fell within the contractor’s contractual operations while others alleged independent occupiers’ liability outside the scope of the policy.

Because the pleadings disclosed both covered and uncovered claims, the insurer had a partial duty to defend.

The insurer was ordered to pay 75% of the applicants’ defence costs on an ongoing basis, subject to reconsideration as the factual record develops.

Following an unopposed application removing a co‑executor for misconduct, the court addressed costs.

The evidence established that the co‑executor misappropriated estate funds, frustrated asset sales, and commenced unauthorized legal proceedings in the name of the estate.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the conduct scandalous and warranting substantial indemnity costs.

However, the court reduced the claimed preparation time as disproportionate for an unopposed application.

Costs were ordered payable personally by the respondent rather than from the estate.