S. Lucenti

The moving defendants brought a motion for directions regarding which version of a Reference Plan should be registered on title following a boundary dispute judgment.

The moving defendants argued for an April 2020 draft plan, while the plaintiff and responding title company argued for the June 2020 final plan.

The court found that the surveyor had corrected an error in the draft plan and that the final June 2020 plan accurately reflected the prior judgment.

The motion was dismissed, and the June 2020 plan was ordered to be registered.

Costs were awarded to the responding title company.

The defendant, Michel Royer, brought a motion to set aside default judgments totaling over $800,000 obtained against him by multiple plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' claims arose from indignities to human remains committed by the co-defendant owner of a funeral home where Royer lived and volunteered.

Royer had retained a lawyer to defend the actions, but due to the negligence of his lawyer and the failure of the plaintiffs' lawyer to provide notice before noting him in default, judgments were entered against him.

The court applied the test for setting aside a default judgment, finding that Royer moved promptly upon learning of the judgments, had a plausible excuse for the delay, and possessed an arguable defence on the merits.

The motion was granted and the default judgments were set aside.

The plaintiff was struck by a vehicle while riding his bicycle and sued the driver and the municipality, alleging the intersection was dark due to burnt-out streetlights.

The municipality moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to provide notice of the claim within 10 days as required by s. 44(10) of the Municipal Act.

The court found the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for the delay, as the municipality's potential liability was not discoverable until the police file was released months later.

However, the court concluded that whether the municipality was prejudiced by the delay remained a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The plaintiff purchased a farm property from the defendant vendors.

After closing, she discovered severe latent defects, including a history of basement flooding, a failed septic system, and that the house additions and garage were built without building permits.

The plaintiff sued the vendors for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation, and her title insurer for breach of contract after it denied coverage.

The court found the vendors liable for actively concealing defects and acting with reckless disregard.

The court also found the title insurer liable, holding that the lack of permits and unsafe building orders were covered risks under the policy.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for the full replacement cost of the structures, special damages, general damages for mental distress, and punitive damages against the vendors.

The title insurer was held jointly and severally liable for the replacement costs and special damages, but was granted full indemnity from the vendors.