4 total
A taxi company is not vicariously liable for a sexual assault allegedly committed by its driver.
The appellant alleged she was sexually assaulted by a taxi driver employed by the respondent taxi company.
She sued the taxi company on grounds of vicarious liability, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty.
The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing all claims against the taxi company.
On appeal, the appellant challenged the dismissal of her vicarious liability claim.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the alleged sexual assault was only coincidentally linked to the taxi company's activities as a taxi dispatching business and did not meet the test for vicarious liability established in Bazley v. Curry.
The Court of Appeal upheld an order allowing an insurer to proceed with a statutory appraisal.
The appellant commenced a claim under a commercial property insurance policy for windstorm damage and for breach of the insurer's duty of utmost good faith.
The insurer moved for a declaration that the appellant's losses could be determined by appraisal under the Insurance Act.
The motions judge granted the motion.
On appeal, the appellant challenged the motion judge's jurisdiction, argued that the two-year delay barred appraisal, and contended that the order impermissibly bifurcated the jury trial.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge had jurisdiction, that no abuse of process occurred despite the delay, and that the appraisal process would simply narrow the issues for trial rather than impermissibly bifurcate it.
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment upheld due to lack of evidence of haunted property stigma damages.
The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action regarding the stigma of a haunted property.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that summary judgment was appropriate given the lack of direct evidence of economic loss or strange occurrences at the property.
Motion for stay pending leave to appeal to SCC dismissed for failing RJR-MacDonald test.
The moving parties sought a stay pending an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from an order of the Court of Appeal refusing leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision.
The Divisional Court had upheld the revocation of the moving parties' motor vehicle inspection licences.
Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that the moving parties failed to demonstrate a serious question to be tried or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, given the public safety concerns.
The motion for a stay was dismissed with costs.
