Thomas Harley

The plaintiff mortgagee moved for summary judgment to enforce a mortgage by way of power of sale and for a writ of possession.

The defendant mortgagor had defaulted on payments and failed to redeem the mortgage.

Although the defendant filed a Statement of Defence, he did not file any responding evidence on the motion.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, granted summary judgment for the outstanding mortgage debt of $564,514.56, and ordered a writ of possession.

The plaintiff lender moved without notice to set aside an existing default judgment and replace it with separate secured and unsecured judgments after learning that the combined form of judgment prevented assignment of the insured mortgage shortfall claim to the mortgage insurer.

The court held that rr. 59.06(1) and 59.06(2), read liberally with r. 1.04, permitted the relief because the change was formal rather than substantive, no prejudice to the defendants was apparent, and the total indebtedness remained unchanged.

The court treated the original judgment as containing an accidental omission in failing to separate the debts and accepted that the defect was discovered only after judgment.

The motion was granted, the writ of seizure and sale remained effective, and no costs were ordered.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on black ice while walking toward his parked vehicle to retrieve his wallet.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the purpose test was met, the causation test was not.

The slip and fall on ice was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation, and the use or operation of the vehicle was not the dominant feature of the incident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a minor injured in a motor vehicle accident, brought a motion for the production of the insurer's complete accident benefits file and surveillance evidence.

The insurer failed to respond to the applicant's requests or provide submissions on privilege.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to produce an Affidavit of Documents and the file up to the date of mediation, finding that litigation privilege attached on that date.

The insurer was also ordered to produce all surveillance evidence and pay $450 in expenses for the motion.

The appellant hired the 13-year-old respondent to perform chores at his cottage.

The respondent negligently started a fire while trying to refuel a lawn mower, causing $285,000 in damage.

The appellant's insurer brought a subrogated claim against the respondent in tort and contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that an employee is generally not liable to indemnify an employer for ordinary negligence.

Applying the Anns test, the court found that while the harm was foreseeable, the parties' relationship lacked sufficient proximity to make liability just and fair, and residual policy considerations weighed against imposing a duty of care.

The appellant insurer appealed a decision finding that a homeowners policy exclusion for motorized land vehicles did not apply.

The insured accidentally started a fire while removing parts from an inoperable motor vehicle to use in a replica car he was building.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the exclusion did not apply because the assertions of negligence were not related to the ownership or use of the vehicles as motor vehicles.