Stephen N. Libin

The plaintiff, Bridgepoint Financial Services Limited Partnership I, brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant, Rudolf Steinberg, who failed to deliver a Statement of Defence and was noted in default.

The defendant had entered into five litigation loan agreements with the plaintiff from 2013 to 2014, receiving $65,000 at interest rates of 20% and 24% compounded semi-annually.

The loans were related to the defendant's claim against Pamela Adderley for motor vehicle accident damages.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's action against Adderley and the dismissal of his appeals, the plaintiff demanded repayment.

The court granted default judgment, finding that the dismissal of the action constituted a Material Adverse Change triggering repayment obligations, and that the interest rates had been determined to be lawful by prior court decisions.

The court approved a settlement agreement in a class action concerning losses suffered by investors in a syndicated mortgage loan promoted by Fortress Real Developments Inc. and Fortress Real Capital Inc. The settlement, reached with FMP Mortgage Investments Inc. and related defendants, provides for a $3,000,000 payment to class members, representing a substantial portion of the available insurance.

The court also certified the action as a class proceeding for the purposes of the settlement, approved class counsel fees, and made ancillary orders to facilitate the administration of the settlement and protect the parties involved.

The decision addresses a motion by Pamela Adderley for standing in an application brought by Bridgepoint Financial Services Limited Partnership I against Rudolf Steinberg.

The application concerns entitlement to settlement funds arising from accident benefits and the priority of claims to those funds.

The court considers whether Adderley should be joined as a party under Rule 5.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure or permitted to participate under section 67 of the Personal Property Security Act.

The court concludes that while Adderley is not a necessary party for joinder, her interests are engaged under the PPSA and she is permitted to participate in the application, subject to limits on her evidence and submissions.

The appellants, small and mid-size businesses, appealed a class action decision regarding business interruption insurance claims stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

They sought coverage for revenue losses, arguing that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 or civil authority orders constituted "physical loss or damage" to their property under their insurance policies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that neither the virus's presence nor the civil authority orders met the "physical loss or damage" criteria for business interruption coverage.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The defendant, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, brought a motion seeking answers to undertakings and refusals from the plaintiff, Shoppers Drug Mart Inc., following an examination for discovery in an insurance claim dispute.

The core dispute revolved around the relevance and proportionality of requests for drug identification numbers (DINs) and storage condition information for a large shipment of pharmaceuticals allegedly damaged in a truck accident.

The court granted most of the defendant's requests, compelling answers to undertaking no. 5 and refusal nos. 1 to 5, finding them relevant to the issue of cargo damage and not disproportionate.

However, the court denied the request for refusal no. 6, deeming it too broad and not relevant to the contractual claim against Aviva.

The defendant was awarded costs.

The defendants in a certified class action regarding COVID-19 business interruption insurance claims brought a motion seeking joint adjudication and common case management of common questions across approximately 79 overlapping proceedings.

The motion was opposed by several plaintiffs in individual actions who wished to proceed independently.

The court dismissed the motion, affording deference to a prior case management decision that declined to stay the individual actions, and finding that forcing joint adjudication would inappropriately undermine the plaintiffs' right to opt out of the class proceeding and cause undue delay.

An insured claimed under a jewelry insurance policy for a ring valued at over $500,000 allegedly stolen during a late-night beach walk in the Dominican Republic.

The insurer denied the claim based on suspicious circumstances and the insured's prior loss of another valuable ring.

The motion judge granted summary judgment in favor of the insured, awarded punitive damages for bad faith, and ordered substantial indemnity costs.

On appeal, the court found the motion judge erred by refusing to allow the insurer to amend its pleadings to rely on fraud exclusions and by failing to consider credibility issues and suspicious circumstances relevant to whether the loss was proven.

The appeal court set aside the judgment and remitted the matter for trial.

The plaintiffs sought court approval for a class action settlement and allocation plan concerning a Hepatitis A contamination recall of frozen fruit.

The court approved the $3,000,000 settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the arm's length negotiations, lack of significant objections, and risks of continued litigation.

The plan allocated funds across four categories: purchasers, immunized members, bodily injury members, and family members/health insurers.

The plaintiff homeowners sued the defendants after their house was damaged by fire.

The defendants, Andrew Grant Design Group Ltd. and Inspired Landscape Solutions Inc. (and Kevin MacDonald), brought motions to amend their third-party claims to substitute 'John Doe Gas Fitter' with Ross Hammond and 'John Doe Manufacturer' with Sunstone Metal Products L.L.C., and to delete Fire Magic Grills.

Sunstone opposed on limitation period grounds.

The court applied discoverability principles under the Limitations Act, 2002, finding that the moving parties exercised due diligence in identifying the correct third parties.

The motions were granted, allowing the amendments, with leave for Sunstone and Hammond to plead a limitations defence at trial.

The plaintiff sought to add Pave-Tar Construction Ltd. as a defendant after the expiry of the putative limitation period, arguing that the claim was not discovered until the City of Toronto disclosed Pave-Tar's winter maintenance contract.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in discovering the identity and role of Pave-Tar within the two-year limitation period, as no evidence was provided to explain the delay in inquiry.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to strike portions of the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim.

The plaintiff's action was a product liability claim for damages following a vehicle crash.

The defendants argued that the amended portions, which introduced a defective ETCS-1 throttle control system module as the cause of the crash, constituted a new cause of action asserted after the two-year limitation period.

The court found that the module defect was indeed a new cause of action, not merely a particular of the original claim.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she could not have discovered the module defect through due diligence prior to the expiry of the limitation period, especially given her membership in a class proceeding where such issues were discussed.

Consequently, the motion was granted, and all portions of the Amended Statement of Claim referencing the module defect were struck.

The plaintiff, Mohammed Siddeeq Arif, sued for damages after being injured during a rock climbing course.

The defendants, Zen Climb and Halton Region Conservation Authority (HRCA), moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing that Arif had signed two releases of liability and voluntarily assumed the risks.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that Arif was bound by the releases and that the defence of *volenti non fit injuria* applied, as he voluntarily assumed the risks of rock climbing.

The court also denied the plaintiff's request to file further expert evidence or adjourn the motion, emphasizing the plaintiff's failure to put his "best foot forward" in preparing for the summary judgment motion.