3 total
Active corporation found to be true lessee of rental vehicle, triggering its insurance policy in priority.
The defendants brought a motion to determine which of two motor vehicle liability policies must respond to the plaintiffs' personal injury claim following a collision involving a rental vehicle.
The issue turned on whether the true lessee of the vehicle was the dormant corporation named on the rental account or the active corporation that employed the driver and paid for the rental.
Applying agency principles, the court found that the active corporation was the true lessee, meaning its insurance policy must respond in priority.
The motion was resolved in favour of the defendants.
Absentee landlords are generally not liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act for a tenant's dog.
This appeal concerned a dog bite injury where the appellants sued the dog owners and the landlords of the property.
The motion judge granted summary judgment to the landlords (Crisols), dismissing the action against them, based on an interpretation of the Dog Owners' Liability Act (DOLA) s. 3(1) that it entirely ousted the Occupiers' Liability Act (OLA) for non-dog owners when a bite occurs on the dog owner's premises.
The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in this interpretation, clarifying that DOLA s. 3(1) only determines the liability of the dog owner under DOLA, not precluding OLA or common law claims against other parties.
However, the Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment dismissal against the landlords on the alternative ground that there was no genuine issue for trial regarding their liability under the OLA or common law, as absentee landlords who had no prior knowledge of the dog's temperament and no responsibility for the dog or its behaviour, and where the injury was not causally linked to any failure in property maintenance or repair.
Landlords are not liable for a tenant's dog biting a visitor on the rented premises.
The plaintiffs sued the tenants and the landlords after a child was bitten by the tenants' dog on the rented premises.
The landlords brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Dog Owners' Liability Act (DOLA) places strict liability on the dog owners and precludes liability under the Occupiers' Liability Act (OLA) when the attack occurs on the dog owner's premises.
The court agreed, finding that DOLA applied exclusively and that the landlords owed no duty of care under the OLA or the Residential Tenancies Act.
Partial summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against the landlords.
