Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-19-4154 Date: 2025-09-29

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

MORGUARD INVESTMENTS LIMITED Plaintiff

- and -

ALECTRA INC. and ALECTRA UTILITIES CORPORATION Defendants

Counsel:

• Jennifer McGlashan, for the Plaintiff
• Brad Halfin, for the Defendants

Heard: June 16, 2025

Reasons for Judgment

Wilkinson J.

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff, Morguard Investments Limited ("Morguard"), asserts claims in negligence against the Defendants, Alectra Utilities Corporation ("Alectra") and its corporate parent, Alectra Inc. Alectra cut power to Morguard's premises in freezing temperatures to repair a broken electrical component, which Alectra deemed to be an emergency repair. The power outage caused Morguard's hydronic heating system to freeze and burst, resulting in damages.

[2] Morguard alleges that Alectra was negligent in deeming the repair to be an emergency and performing the repair with inadequate notice to Morguard, and for proceeding with the repair despite the freezing conditions outside. Alectra claims that there is no legal basis for Morguard's claims, and moves by way of summary judgment to dismiss Morguard's action in its entirety.

[3] The Defendant, Alectra Inc., does not distribute electricity, and was not involved in the work or other issues that are in dispute in this action. No specific evidence was led on this motion by Morguard regarding the basis in law to pursue Alectra Inc. for damages in the event that Alectra Utilities Corporation was found to be liable for Morguard's damages.

[4] The alleged role of Alectra Inc. regarding the damages suffered by Morguard did not feature prominently in the submissions of either party. I am unable to make findings regarding the validity of the Plaintiff's claims against Alectra Inc. on the evidence before me. Accordingly, for the purposes of this motion the Alectra Defendants will be treated as one singular Defendant.

The Issues

[5] The four issues in this case are:

• What was the cause of the water damage?
• Did Alectra owe Morguard a duty of care?
• If Alectra did owe Morguard a duty of care, did it meet the standard of care?
• Is there a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding Morguard's claim for damages as against Alectra?

Background

[6] Alectra is a distributor of electricity licensed by the Ontario Energy Board. Electricity is distributed to customers under the terms of the Distribution System Code, which is issued by the Ontario Energy Board, and Alectra's Conditions of Service ("COS"). The COS formed part of the contract between Alectra and Morguard.

[7] Alectra supplies the electricity to two commercial office buildings located at 33 and 55 City Centre Drive, in Mississauga, Ontario ("the Premises"), which are owned, managed, and operated by Morguard. The Premises share the same electricity distribution system, but have different heating systems. 33 City Centre Drive has an electronic heating system, while 55 City Centre Drive uses a hydronic heating system that relies on heating water to heat the building using a network of tubes.

[8] Alectra supplies electricity to the Premises through underground cables that connect into two high-voltage load interrupters that are housed in an underground vault inside 33 City Centre Drive ("the Vault").

[9] Alectra owns and is responsible for the cables and the high-voltage equipment inside the Vault. However, all the electrical components and non-electrical components beyond the Vault, as well as the Vault itself, are owned by Morguard.

[10] Through routine inspections, Alectra determined that a connection point between two cables that carry electricity into the Vault, known as a "Switch", was broken. A functioning Switch is necessary to ensure that electricity can be reliably delivered to the Premises and surrounding area. The Switch serves as a safety mechanism. The Switch permits the electricity to be cut off if one of the feeders leading into the Vault is faulty, and re-routed to the properly functioning feeder, so that electricity service to the area is not interrupted. The Vault supplies electricity to over 1200 customers. If the Switch does not allow the electricity to be re-routed, it could create a power outage which could create significant challenges, such as the loss of traffic lights.

[11] Alectra determined that the malfunctioning Switch was an abnormal condition requiring repair and concluded that it had to be repaired on an urgent basis to maintain the integrity of the electrical system. The repair required a temporary power outage to the Vault and the Premises.

[12] On January 2, 2018, Alectra advised Morguard that a temporary power outage was required to complete the necessary repairs. Alectra proposed that the repairs be completed at or around 10:00 p.m. on January 4, 2018.

[13] On January 3, 2018, Morguard confirmed that the repairs could proceed at the time suggested by Alectra, subject to any requests from Morguard's tenants. Morguard also advised Alectra that it had retained a third-party electrician to take down the electrical loads in the Premises before the repairs began, and to restore the electricity upon the completion of the repairs.

[14] Later that same day, Morguard requested that the repairs not begin until 1:00 a.m. on January 5, 2018, to accommodate a request made by one of Morguard's tenants. Alectra agreed to schedule the repairs at the time requested by Morguard.

[15] The power was accordingly shut off, and repairs began at approximately 1:24 a.m. on January 5, 2018. The work was completed, and power was restored to the Vault by around 2:43 a.m. on January 5, 2018.

[16] The electrician hired by Morguard restored power to the Premises at 3:09 a.m. on January 5, 2018. It was a very cold night. The temperature including wind chill ranged from -30 degrees Celsius to -32 degrees Celsius.

[17] While the power was off, the water in the pipes at 55 City Centre Drive froze because of the cold weather and lack of heating. This freezing caused the pipes in the building to burst, resulting in flooding and damage to the building.

[18] There was no damage to 33 City Centre Drive, as it was heated by an electrical system which did not involve water.

[19] Morguard sued Alectra for damage caused by the burst pipes, alleging that Alectra was negligent in conducting the repairs in freezing conditions leading to frozen water in the pipes. There is no suggestion by Morguard that the repair work to the Switch itself was negligently performed.

Position of the Moving Party, Alectra

[20] Alectra argues that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial in the dispute before me, and thus, summary judgment should be granted dismissing the action.

[21] Alectra submits that Morguard was provided with ample notice of Alectra's emergency work, and, in fact, participated in the planning of the work, including coordinating with Alectra to set a time for the work to proceed.

[22] Alectra also submits that Morguard failed to advise Alectra of the type of heating system in its building, and did not raise any concerns with Alectra that its heating system might be vulnerable to weather conditions during a temporary power outage.

[23] Alectra provided affidavit evidence from its underground maintenance supervisor, Antonio Mina, that the repair job could have been cancelled on January 5, 2018 if the customer had requested the cancellation.

[24] Alectra also submits that Morguard did not have any back-up power for its heating system, despite being obligated to do so under its contract with Alectra.

[25] Alectra relies upon its COS contract with Morguard, which provides at section 2.2 that Alectra may "disconnect or limit the supply of electrical energy for causes not limited to…[a] materially adverse effect on the reliability or safety of Alectra Utilities' distribution system". Section 2.2 also provides that "Alectra shall not be liable for any damage to the Customer's premises resulting from such discontinuation of service".

[26] Alectra also relies upon section 2.3.3.1 of the COS contract which provides that Alectra is entitled to interrupt a customer's electricity supply, and that Alectra "shall endeavour" to provide reasonable advance notice, however, "[n]otice may not be provided where the nature of the work is an emergency involving possible injury to Persons, or damage to property or equipment".

[27] The COS contract defines "emergency" as "any abnormal system condition that requires remedial action to prevent or limit loss of a distribution system or supply of electricity that could adversely affect the reliability of the electricity system". In addition, section 2.3.3.2 of the COS states that "[i]f an unsafe, hazardous or emergency condition is found to exist …service may be interrupted without notice".

[28] Alectra also relies upon section 2.3.1 of the COS, which states that customers requiring a higher degree of reliability than a normal supply "shall be responsible for supplying their own uninterruptible power supply ("UPS"), back-up or standby facilities". Further, section 1.6 of the COS provides that Alectra has no liability to any customer absent willful misconduct or negligence, and Alectra shall not be liable for any indirect damages. Finally, section 1.6.2 of the COS provides that Alectra is not responsible for equipment outside the physical location where Alectra's assets were located.

[29] Alectra also submits that I ought not to rely upon the opinion of engineer Robert Sparling as to the cause of the water damage for two reasons. First, he was not able to identify who took the photographs in his report. Second, he relied upon information provided to him by the Operations Manager for Morguard, Peter Soares, regarding when the water damage occurred at the City Centre Drive property after power was restored, and regarding which heating components leaked water. Alectra submits that because the information relied upon by Mr. Sparling is not in Mr. Soares' affidavit, Mr. Sparling's report is based on unsworn evidence from Mr. Soares, which cannot be relied upon. Alectra therefore takes the position that Mr. Sparling's report is inadmissible.

[30] In summary, Alectra takes the position that it is not responsible for the damages caused by the burst pipes. Alectra takes the position that it is only responsible for the equipment located inside the Vault. It submits that due to its hydronic heating system, Morguard should have alerted Alectra as to the risk of the water in the pipes freezing. It also submits that Morguard should have requested a further delay for the repair until conditions warmed, or to arrange for a back-up power supply. Alectra disputes that it was negligent, or that it is liable for Morguard's damages.

[31] Alectra submits that neither Defendant owed Morguard a duty of care, and that if such duty is found, the Defendants met the standard of care. Alectra therefore takes the position that there no genuine issue in the dispute before me that requires a trial, and that there is sufficient evidence in the paper record to permit me to make the necessary findings of fact required to grant summary judgment to the Defendants resulting in a dismissal of Morguard's claim.

Position of the Responding Party, Morguard

[32] Morguard takes the position that it is not appropriate to grant Alectra summary judgment with respect to the issues in dispute, as there are genuine issues requiring a trial between the parties, including:

a) Whether Alectra's repair work needed to be completed on an emergency basis;

b) Whether Alectra gave reasonable notice to Morguard before carrying out the electrical work at the premises;

c) Whether Morguard consented to Alectra's work by cooperating with Alectra; and

d) Whether Alectra is liable for Morguard's damages.

[33] In the alternative, if I decide that I can make the necessary findings of fact based on the evidence before me, Morguard submits that I should find that Alectra owed a duty of care to Morguard. It also submits that I should find that Alectra failed to meet the standard of care owed towards Morguard, as it was foreseeable that cutting power to Morguard's properties during winter when there were very cold temperatures would cause damage to the property at 55 City Centre Drive.

[34] Morguard takes the position that it took all reasonable and prudent steps to protect the Premises and its HVAC systems.

[35] Morguard provided affidavit evidence from its Operations Manager, Peter Soares, that Alectra told him that a high-voltage switch had failed and required an emergency repair. He also stated that Alectra told him that the situation created a fire risk. Mr. Soares deposed that based on the information provided by Alectra, he understood that the repair had to be done immediately.

[36] At his cross-examination, Mr. Soares stated that he did not believe that he could negotiate for any extensions of time for the repair work to be conducted, as Alectra had deemed the situation an emergency. Mr. Soares also stated that the notice provided to Morguard regarding the need for emergency repairs was not reasonable, as Morguard was only given two days' notice after New Years Day, that the repairs were to be completed two days later.

[37] Morguard argues that it did not engage the use of an external power source, or external generator, as it was unable to make the necessary arrangements on such short notice. In addition, Mr. Soares stated in his affidavit that this type of external power source was never required before.

[38] Mr. Soares also deposed that the cost to rent a generator that is big enough to power 55 City Centre Drive would have cost Morguard in the range of $250,000. Morguard did not provide proof of this rental expense. Mr. Soares also stated that Morguard considered placing propane heaters in the building, but this was ultimately deemed an unsafe option due to the inability of the area to be properly vented.

[39] Mr. Soares further stated in his affidavit that all the doors and vents in the building were closed in an attempt to contain the existing heat in the building, and to prevent the external cold from entering the building and freezing the pipes.

[40] Morguard relies upon the expert opinion of engineer Maksym Tykhomyrov, who provided an affidavit which contained his report, his curriculum vitae, and a signed Form 53: Acknowledgement of Expert's Duty. Alectra did not dispute Mr. Tykhomyrov's expertise. Mr. Tykhomyrov opined that the fact that the Switch was remaining in a closed position did not create an emergency situation. He stated that there would have been no danger in leaving the Switch in the closed position because the closed position was one of the Switch's designed positions (opened or closed), and could have remained closed for a long period of time. He also opined that there was a further upstream commutation apparatus in the series that could have been used if a circuit was required to be created or broken.

[41] Mr. Tykhomyrov also stated that since the Switch was manually operated, it was not a part of the interconnected protection system, and did not affect Alectra's ability to supply electricity safely and reliably to its customers.

[42] Morguard therefore argues that the issue as to whether the Switch remaining in the closed position was an emergency situation that required an immediate repair remains an issue in dispute that requires a trial.

[43] Morguard also relies upon the expert opinion of engineer Robert Sparling to establish that the loss of power was the cause of the pipes and hydronic units freezing, and causing water damage when the freezing thawed after the power was turned back on.

[44] Morguard also relies upon s. 40(8) of the Electricity Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 15, Sched. A (the "Electricity Act"), which requires an electricity distributor to provide compensation to a customer if the distributor exercises a power of entry as it is permitted to do under the Electricity Act and causes damage.

The Law

[45] Rule 20.04(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, provides that "[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if … the court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial with respect to a claim or defence".

[46] Rule 20.04(2.1) sets out the powers of the judge hearing the summary judgment motion:

Powers

(2.1) In determining under clause (2)(a) whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial, the court shall consider the evidence submitted by the parties and, if the determination is being made by a judge, the judge may exercise any of the following powers for the purpose, unless it is in the interest of justice for such powers to be exercised only at a trial:

1. Weighing the evidence.
2. Evaluating the credibility of a deponent.
3. Drawing any reasonable inference from the evidence.

[47] Summary judgment is available to the parties when the judge is able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits on a motion for summary judgment. This will be the case when the process (1) allows the judge to make the necessary findings of fact, (2) allows the judge to apply the law to the facts, and (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result: Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, at para. 49.

[48] The moving party seeking summary judgment has the burden of proof to establish that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial: Botnick et al. v. The Samuel and Bessie Orfus Family Foundation et al., 2011 ONSC 3043, 71 E.T.R. (3d) 210, at para. 10, aff'd 2013 ONCA 225, 86 E.T.R. (3d) 6.

[49] On a motion for summary judgment, "[a] responding party may not rest on mere allegations or denials of the party's pleadings, but must set out, in affidavit material or other evidence, specific facts showing there is a genuine issue requiring a trial": Sweda Farms Ltd. et al. v. L.H. Gray & Son Limited et al., 2013 ONSC 4195, at para. 27.

[50] Each party to a motion for summary judgment has an obligation to "... 'put its best foot forward' with respect to the existence or non-existence of material issues to be tried": Ramdial v. Davis, 2015 ONCA 726, 341 O.A.C. 78, at para. 27, citing (Attorney General) v. Lameman, 2008 SCC 14, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 372, at para. 11.

Analysis

The Cause of the Water Damage

[51] On a balance of probabilities, I accept the opinion of Mr. Sparling that the power being shut off caused the water in some of the pipes and hydronic units at 55 City Centre Drive to freeze, and that when the power was turned back on, the water generated through the thawing process caused some of the pipes and hydronic units to leak, which caused water damage in the building.

[52] I recognize the concern raised by Alectra that Mr. Sparling's opinion as to the cause of the water damage was based upon statements made to him by Mr. Soares that are not contained in an affidavit. However, Alectra has offered no alternate theory as to the cause of the leaking. Further, Alectra did not attack the conclusions reached by Mr. Sparling other than to challenge the reliability of the information from Mr. Soares upon which Mr. Sparling based his findings.

[53] Alectra has provided no direct evidence to challenge the information provided by Mr. Soares to Mr. Sparling. I have reviewed Mr. Sparling's curriculum vitae and find that he is capable of providing an expert opinion as to the cause of the water damage experienced at 55 City Centre Drive on January 5, 2018.

[54] I am therefore satisfied that I can rely upon Mr. Sparling's conclusions as to the cause of the water damage at 55 City Centre Drive. In addition, it accords with common sense that water that becomes frozen in pipes can cause the pipes to burst, which can result in water damage. I therefore reject Alectra's position that the causal connection between the power being turned off and the pipes freezing is "remote".

Did Alectra Owe a Duty of Care to Morguard to Complete the Repairs Without Risk of Damaging the Premises?

[55] There appears to be no dispute that the COS agreement confirms that Morguard has the right to access electricity from Morguard's distribution system to ensure the Premises receive an adequate supply of electricity. However, the parties do not agree as to whether Alectra owed Morguard a duty of care to complete the repairs without risk of damaging the property owned by Morguard.

[56] Alectra submits that the Defendants were not in a sufficiently proximate relationship to Morguard to create a duty of care owed by the Defendants to Morguard. Morguard submits that a duty of care existed between the parties.

[57] When determining if one party owes a duty of care to the other, the factors to consider include, but are not limited to, the parties' expectations, representations, and reliance, and the property or other interests involved: Cooper v. Hobart, 2001 SCC 79, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537, at para. 34.

[58] The COS agreement governs the ongoing relationship between the parties, and consequently, the reasonable expectations of the parties. The terms of the COS are clear that Alectra did not guarantee an uninterrupted supply of electricity to Morguard (s. 2.3.1). The COS also stated that Alectra may disconnect electrical energy where there could be a materially adverse effect on the reliability or safety of Alectra's distribution system, and that the power can be disconnected in an emergency situation (s. 2.2). It further stated that Alectra shall not be liable for any damage to the customer's premises resulting from such discontinuation of service (s. 2.2).

[59] Based on these terms, it ought to have been clear to Morguard that situations may occur where power to the Premises was required to be disconnected, possibly without notice to Morguard, and that Alectra was not to be liable for any damages resulting from the loss of power. However, it was also reasonable for Morguard to only anticipate this situation arising in the case of an emergency.

[60] Since there is debate as to whether the broken Switch created a situation of emergency, it could be found that Alectra is unable to rely upon the emergency repair provisions in the COS, and accordingly, owed Morguard a duty of care to ensure that it was not negatively affected by the power outage.

Did Alectra Meet the Standard of Care It Owed to Morguard?

[61] Morguard submits that Alectra was negligent in performing its repair work in the very early hours of January 5, 2018, as shutting off the power on a frigid night caused water damage to 55 City Centre Drive. Morguard argues that the repair was not urgent, and could have been done on a warmer day, and further, that the water damage caused by the pipes freezing ought to have been foreseeable to the Alectra employees.

[62] Morguard relies upon subsection 40 of the Electricity Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 15, Sched. A. Subsection 40(1) permits a distributor of electricity to enter land on which its transmission or distribution system is located for various purposes, including inspection and repair. However, s.40(8)(c) states that a person exercising power of entry under the section shall "provide compensation for any damages caused by the entry". This section potentially conflicts with the sections of the COS that protect distributors of electricity from liability in emergency situations. Morguard submits that where there is conflict between the COS and available legislation referred to in the COS, that the legislation shall prevail.

[63] Morguard therefore submits that even if Alectra was not negligent in performing the repair work itself, Alectra is liable for any damages caused to its property while Alectra was facilitating the repair work.

[64] Alectra submits that Morguard did not plead reliance on the Electricity Act in the statement of claim, and therefore should be precluded from relying on the content of that legislation on this summary judgment motion. Alectra further submits that s. 40(8)(c) only applies when the distributor has exercised a power of entry, which does not apply to the facts before me, as the repair work proceeded on notice to, and with the cooperation of Morguard.

[65] I agree with the position of Alectra that the repairs conducted on January 5, 2018 were not a power of entry situation. Morguard was given notice prior to the repairs being conducted and was able to negotiate a later start time for the repairs. Morguard was also able to arrange for electricians to take down the power and re-start the power once the repairs were completed. I therefore find that the protections afforded to Morguard under s. 40 of the Electricity Act do not assist Morguard in its efforts to have Alectra found to be liable for its damages.

[66] The real issue before me is whose responsibility it was to analyze the situation to determine if there was a risk of pipes bursting when the power was shut off. Morguard argues that the pipes at 55 City Centre Drive freezing due to the frigid temperatures was foreseeable to the Alectra employees. However, Morguard does not offer an explanation as to why its own employees did not foresee that the pipes may freeze. Morguard was in the best position to know and understand its heating system, and to know the potential impacts on its heating system if the power was turned off when the external temperature was extremely cold.

[67] Similarly, Morguard argues that Alectra should have asked it if there was any issue with cutting off the power, but does not offer an explanation as to why it did not anticipate potential issues with the water in the pipes and the hydronic units freezing, and advise Alectra of that risk.

[68] In his affidavit, Mr. Soares stated that all the doors and vents in the building were closed in an attempt to contain the existing heat in the building, and to prevent the external cold from entering the building and freezing the pipes. This evidence suggests that Morguard considered the possibility that the pipes might freeze, but did not advise Alectra of its concerns.

[69] Morguard provided affidavit evidence from Mr. Soares that he was informed by Alectra that the faulty Switch was a fire risk, and that it was his view that Alectra was determined to go ahead with the repair no matter what he said. However, there is no mention of Alectra raising the risk of fire with Morguard anywhere else in the record, nor is the risk of fire mentioned in any of the email correspondence between Alectra and Morguard leading up to the time the repairs were initiated. Morguard has failed to establish that it was informed by Alectra that the faulty Switch created a fire risk.

[70] I find that Morguard ought to have alerted Alectra to the fact that the power outage might cause the pipes to freeze in extremely cold conditions. I make this finding for the following reasons:

a) Alectra's responsibility to Morguard was to provide electricity. It was outside of Alectra's contract with Morguard to inform itself of Morguard's heating systems and to ensure that the system could withstand a loss of power during freezing conditions;

b) Morguard was advised of the planned power outage and did not raise any concerns to Alectra about the pipes freezing;

c) Morguard considered the risk of the pipes freezing by closing the doors and the vents to contain heat in the building and to prevent cold air from coming in when the power was off to try to avoid water in the pipes freezing, but did not communicate concerns about freezing in the pipes to Alectra;

d) Morguard did not ask for the repair work to be delayed until the external temperature increased;

e) Morguard cooperated in the scheduling of the repair work by arranging for third party electricians to take down the power before the repair work began, and to restore it once the repairs were completed, but did not discuss potential negative impacts on the Premises due to the power outage with Alectra;

f) Operations Manager Mr. Soares admitted at his cross-examination that he did not investigate the cost of bringing in a generator to provide back-up power to the heating system while the repairs were being conducted; and

g) Morguard had time after being advised of the planned power outage to check the weather forecast and advise Alectra if it had concerns about the power being off when the external temperatures were frigid. Mr. Soares admitted at his cross-examination that he did not review the weather forecast before agreeing to the date and time for the power to be turned off, or to consider if warmer weather conditions were forecasted in the near future.

[71] The expert engineering evidence provided by Mr. Tykhomyrov on behalf of Morguard raises a triable issue as to whether the faulty Switch created an emergency situation. However, that does not change the fact that Morguard agreed to the repairs being conducted and participated in arranging the time for the repair. Had Alectra determined there was an emergency situation, and turned off the power without notice to Morguard, then the issue as to whether or not there truly was an emergency situation would be of critical importance to the outcome of the case.

[72] Similarly, if Morguard had objected to the repairs being done due to the weather conditions, and Alectra had proceeded with the repairs anyway, the issue as to whether the repair was truly an emergency would be highly relevant.

[73] But those are not the facts before me. This was not a force of entry situation. The repair was done with notice to Morguard, and without objection from Morguard. It is therefore not necessary to determine if Alectra is entitled to the protections under the COS regarding repairs conducted in an emergency situation.

[74] There is no evidence before me to suggest that either Morguard or Alectra considered the impact of turning off the power to a building heated through hydronics during freezing weather. Morguard owned the building. Morguard did not direct me to any section of the COS that required Alectra to be responsible for the integrity of Morguard's heating system for 55 City Centre Drive while Alectra was conducting repairs to the electrical system. It was Morguard's responsibility to ensure that the building could withstand a power shut off during freezing temperatures.

Conclusion

[75] I find that there is sufficient information before me to make findings of fact and apply the law to the facts to reach a fair and just determination on the merits of this motion for summary judgment. This summary process is a proportionate, more expeditious, and less expensive means for the parties to address the issues in dispute, which would otherwise likely be a lengthy trial.

[76] The key issue in this case was the content of the communications between the parties when arranging for the repair work to be completed. I am satisfied that the critical email communications have been presented to me, and that deferring this matter to a trial would not produce better evidence with respect to that issue.

[77] Morguard has established that Alectra may have owed a duty of care to it to ensure that the property was not damaged during repairs being performed, but it has not established that either Defendant breached the standard of care.

[78] There is no genuine issue requiring a trial between the parties. The action brought by Morguard against both Alectra Defendants is dismissed.

Costs

[79] The parties are encouraged to agree upon costs. If they are unable to do so, the Defendants may prepare a cost submission to be served by October 6, 2025. The Plaintiff may prepare a cost submission to be served by October 15, 2025. Cost submissions shall be no longer than three pages double-spaced, not including any Bills of Costs or offers to settle. Cost submissions may be sent to my attention at scj.csj.general.brampton@ontario.ca.

Wilkinson J.

Released: September 29, 2025