4 total
Financing company not liable for commissions owed by installer; summary judgment granted.
The defendant financier moved for summary judgment dismissing a claim for unpaid commissions relating to rooftop solar projects.
The plaintiff alleged contractual entitlement, unjust enrichment, partnership liability, and that the financing corporation was the alter ego of the installer company that had agreed to pay commissions.
The court held there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the moving party, insufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil, no partnership within the meaning of the Partnerships Act, and no enrichment supporting quantum meruit.
Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court dismissed the claim against the moving defendant and awarded costs.
Action restored despite delay where defendants failed to prove actual prejudice.
The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 48.11(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to restore an action to the trial list after it had been struck for failure to submit a trial certification form.
The court applied the test governing restoration following administrative dismissal for delay, including whether the delay was intentional, whether it was inordinate and inexcusable, and whether the defendants suffered prejudice.
Although the delay of approximately 31 months was found to be inordinate and not reasonably explained, the plaintiff successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice and the defendants failed to establish actual prejudice affecting the fairness of a trial.
The court held that the absence of certain radiological studies did not demonstrate a substantial risk that a fair trial was no longer possible.
The action was therefore restored to the trial list, but no costs were awarded.
Appeal of judges' decision regarding horse race interference dismissed for lack of clear evidence.
Standardbred driver Michael Vanderkemp appealed a judges' decision that another horse did not interfere with his horse during a race at Woodbine Racetrack.
The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no clear and convincing evidence of a foul and upholding the judges' original decision to leave the order of finish intact.
Appeal dismissed; no palpable and overriding error in finding bus driver not negligent for pedestrian collision.
The appellant appealed a trial decision dismissing his claim for damages arising from an incident where he came into contact with a transit bus.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the bus driver was not negligent.
The court held that the trial judge did not err by failing to explicitly reference the reverse onus provision in s. 193(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, as the evidence of the accident reconstruction expert supported the finding that the appellant walked or ran into the side of the bus and the driver could not have prevented the accident.
The trial judge's alternative assessment of damages was also upheld.
