Samantha A. Iturregui

The plaintiff, Owen Lightfoot, brought a motion seeking leave to amend his Statement of Claim to proceed under Rule 76 (simplified procedure) and to strike the defendants' jury notice.

The court granted leave to bring the motion, finding that the January 1, 2020 amendment to Rule 76 and the COVID-19 pandemic constituted substantial and unexpected changes in circumstances.

The court further granted leave to amend the Statement of Claim to limit damages to $200,000, thereby bringing the action within Rule 76.

The court held that jury trials are incompatible with the summary trial process mandated by the amended Rule 76, and that the transition provision in Rule 76.14 means pre-January 1, 2020 jury notices are preserved but require the action to proceed in ordinary procedure.

Finding that proceeding with a 3-week jury trial in ordinary procedure would be contrary to the interests of justice and proportionality compared to a 5-day non-jury summary trial under Rule 76, the court struck the defendants' jury notice.

Costs of the motion were reserved.

The plaintiff sued his insurance broker for negligence after his insurer denied coverage for a fire loss because the rental property had been vacant for over five years.

The defendant broker brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim.

The court found that the broker had discharged its duty of care by sending letters explicitly warning the plaintiff about the vacancy exclusion.

Furthermore, the property's uninhabitable state constituted an unreported material change in risk.

The court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss two actions arising from a motor vehicle accident in Ontario.

The defendant argued that because the deceased and the defendant were residents of Quebec, Quebec's no-fault automobile insurance regime and Civil Code should apply, precluding the tort actions.

The court dismissed the motion, applying the lex loci delicti rule from Tolofson v. Jensen.

The court held that Ontario substantive law applies to torts committed in Ontario, allowing the plaintiffs, including derivative claimants under the Family Law Act, to proceed with their actions.

The plaintiff slipped and fell outside a Tim Horton's restaurant.

She initially sued only the franchisee.

More than two years after the accident, she commenced a second action against the landlord and the snow removal contractor.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred.

The court applied the new summary judgment framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin and found that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the potential liability of the landlord and snow removal contractor shortly after the accident.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the expiry of the limitation period and dismissed the action.

Following the granting of summary judgment dismissing an action as statute‑barred, the court addressed outstanding issues regarding the quantum and procedure for awarding costs.

The plaintiffs sought to challenge the previously indicated costs amounts and requested further disclosure of supporting documentation.

The court held it retained jurisdiction to revisit the costs award because no formal order had yet been issued and the judicial officer was not functus.

The court fixed the costs of the summary judgment motion, including enhanced costs due to a reasonable offer to settle, but determined that the costs of the dismissed action required a separate assessment process due to overlapping proceedings.

Costs of the action were therefore ordered on a partial indemnity basis with quantum to be determined by agreement or assessment.

The Court considered whether defendants could seek dismissal under Ontario Rule 21.01(3)(a) based on arbitration and forum selection clauses after delivering a statement of defence.

It held that a defence pleading the foreign forum clause does not itself bar a subsequent Rule 21 motion, provided the motion is brought promptly.

Applying the strong-cause framework for displacing contractual forum clauses, the Court found no basis to refuse enforcement.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.