Timothy Trembley

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' negligence claim for mental distress arising from the death of a family member in a helicopter crash.

The defendants argued that common law precludes recovery for mental distress resulting from the negligently caused death of a human being unless the plaintiffs witnessed the accident or its aftermath.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, the court found that geographic, temporal, and relational proximity restrictions are not absolute bars to recovery.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding it was not plain and obvious that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

Following a successful second trial in an insurance coverage dispute concerning aircraft damage, the court addressed costs and pre‑judgment interest.

The plaintiff sought increased pre‑judgment interest under s.130 of the Courts of Justice Act and substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49.10 based on an earlier offer to settle.

The court exercised its discretion to increase pre‑judgment interest to 1% due to changes in market rates and the lengthy litigation, fixing interest at $7,000.

However, the plaintiff was not entitled to substantial indemnity costs because the offer to settle equaled the eventual judgment and included substantial indemnity provisions that made the judgment less favourable than the offer.

Costs for the second trial were therefore fixed on a partial indemnity basis with a reduction for the use of two senior counsel.

The Attorney General of Canada sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing its motion to strike parts of the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The underlying action involved an aircraft runway overrun, with the plaintiffs alleging Transport Canada was negligent in designing, constructing, and certifying the runway.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision to leave the duty of care analysis for trial.

The insured sought recovery under an aircraft insurance policy after a twin‑engine aircraft crashed during an attempted takeoff using only one functioning engine.

The insurer denied coverage, arguing the occurrence was not an “accident” and alternatively that the insured breached a policy condition requiring protection of the aircraft from further loss.

Applying Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence defining an accident as an “unlooked‑for mishap or occurrence,” the court held that negligent conduct may still constitute an accident unless the insured deliberately assumed a known risk.

Although the pilot’s decision to attempt a single‑engine takeoff was negligent and ill‑advised, the evidence did not establish recklessness or deliberate risk assumption sufficient to remove the occurrence from coverage.

The court also found no breach of the policy’s aircraft protection condition.

Judgment was granted for the insured.

Following a motion in which the plaintiffs successfully opposed the Attorney General’s attempt to strike portions of a statement of claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.11, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The plaintiffs sought approximately $19,586 in fees on a partial indemnity basis, while the defendant argued for a reduced range of $10,000 to $12,000.

Applying the Rule 57.01(1) factors and relevant authorities on partial indemnity costs, the court assessed the complexity of the duty of care issue, the parties’ litigation conduct, and the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rates and bill of costs.

The court concluded that a reduced but significant award was appropriate.

An appeal from a master's discovery order requiring a defendant manufacturer to produce documents concerning aircraft engine parts, counterweights, and related accidents beyond those directly at issue in the action.

The appellants argued the order was disproportionate under Rule 29.2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure because it required production spanning decades and numerous models.

The court held the master properly determined that the documents were relevant to pleaded product liability and duty to warn claims.

In the absence of evidence demonstrating the burden or cost of production, the proportionality argument failed.

The appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the responding co‑defendant.

The defendant federal regulator brought a motion under Rule 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking determination of a question of law that it owed no private law duty of care to the plaintiff insurers in relation to regulatory oversight of an airport.

The action arose from an aircraft runway overrun where the plaintiffs alleged negligence in runway design and construction, ownership of the airport, and regulatory certification of the airport despite known safety deficiencies.

The court held that although existing jurisprudence suggests regulators generally do not owe private law duties of care for policy‑based regulatory decisions, it was not plain and obvious that special circumstances could not give rise to such a duty in the pleaded factual context.

Issues relating to the statutory framework, the characterization of certification decisions as policy or operational, and the factual circumstances required a full evidentiary record.

The motion to strike the regulatory negligence allegations and related pleadings was therefore dismissed.

The plaintiffs commenced a proposed class action alleging that the defendant airline improperly charged United States transportation taxes on ticket purchases.

The defendant moved to dismiss or stay the action for lack of jurisdiction and on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The court held that Ontario had presence‑based jurisdiction because the defendant carried on business in Ontario and there was a real and substantial connection to the dispute.

The revenue rule did not bar adjudication because the action did not seek to enforce foreign tax laws but rather challenged the defendant’s collection of charges from customers.

The motion was dismissed with respect to claims relating to tickets paid for in Canada but granted in relation to tickets paid for in the United States, which were stayed as U.S. courts were the clearly more appropriate forum.