Teena Belland

The plaintiff purchased a property from the defendants and subsequently discovered the wood foundation was rotting.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found that the foundation issues were patent defects that were discoverable by the plaintiff's home inspector, but the plaintiff chose to waive the inspection condition.

Furthermore, there was no evidence that the defendants knew of the defect or actively concealed it.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured when the hood of her parked vehicle collapsed on her while she was refilling the windshield washer fluid.

She sought a declaration that her injuries were sustained in an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The insurer argued that routine maintenance did not constitute the 'use or operation' of a vehicle.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding that checking and topping up fluid levels is an ordinary and well-known activity to which automobiles are put, thereby satisfying the purpose test for SABS coverage.

Following a summary judgment decision in a dispute arising from a fire and the interpretation of a commercial lease, the successful party sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $180,000 including disbursements.

The responding party argued the claimed costs were excessive, citing duplication of counsel, work unrelated to the summary judgment motion, and inflated disbursements.

The court agreed that the bill of costs was excessive and reduced both legal fees and non‑lawyer fees, and excluded certain disbursements not permitted under Tariff A. The court fixed reasonable legal fees and limited disbursements, substantially reducing the total amount sought.