S. Kamayah is an Ontario lawyer with 3 court cases on record from 2015 to 2025.

What courts has S. Kamayah appeared in?

S. Kamayah has appeared in Superior Court of Justice.

How many cases has S. Kamayah handled?

S. Kamayah has 3 cases on record from 2015 to 2025.

What judges has S. Kamayah appeared before?

S. Kamayah has most frequently appeared before Justice W. Danial Newton, Justice Robert A. Muir, Justice Grace.

S. Kamayah | Lawyer

3 total

City of Thunder Bay v. Ontario Municipal Insurance Exchange, 2025 ONSC 3412

This decision concerns the interpretation of an insurance policy following a flood at the City of Thunder Bay’s wastewater pollution control plant.

The central issue was whether increased repair costs required by building code upgrades were subject to a $10 million sub-limit.

The court found that the policy was unambiguous and that the sub-limit applied to all code compliance costs, rejecting the City’s argument that broader coverage was available.

The court also addressed costs, awarding the insurers $25,000.

SCJJun 9, 2025

Respondent Counsel

Sky Solar (Canada) Ltd. v Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2016 ONSC 3265

The defendants brought a motion for an order compelling the plaintiff to produce certain documents, specifically correspondence with its property and liability insurer and insurance broker, and all relevant insurance policies.

The plaintiff did not oppose the production of insurance policies but resisted the production of correspondence, arguing irrelevance.

The court granted the production of the insurance policies but dismissed the request for correspondence, finding that the defendants' pleadings did not establish the relevance of such documents to the issues in the action or the pending summary judgment motion, characterizing the request as a "fishing expedition."

SCJMay 17, 2016

Applicant Counsel

Borthwick et al. v. Lombard Insurance et al., 2015 ONSC 4845

The applicant, who operated a wood shavings business, was sued for negligence after a tree he was cutting down fell and injured the plaintiff.

The applicant sought a declaration that his homeowner's insurer (Northbridge) and his commercial general liability insurer (Economical) had a duty to defend the action.

The court held that Northbridge had no duty to defend because the tree cutting was an occasional pursuit undertaken for financial gain, falling squarely within the policy's business exclusion.

However, the court found that Economical had a duty to defend because the policy covered the applicant as a sole owner of a business, and it was possible the tree cutting arrangement did not constitute a joint venture or partnership that would fall outside coverage.

The applicant's request to appoint independent counsel was dismissed as premature.

Respondent Counsel