Tina Le

This endorsement determines costs following a trial involving two consolidated insurance claims: a Wall Collapse Claim and a Fire Loss Claim.

The plaintiffs (Lalani) succeeded on the Fire Loss Claim against Intact Insurance, being awarded substantial damages, while their Wall Collapse Claim was dismissed.

A negligence claim against the Broker (D.M. Edwards and CG&B) related to the Fire Loss Claim was also dismissed.

The court allocated costs 70% to the Fire Loss Claim and 30% to the Wall Collapse Claim.

Lalani was awarded partial and substantial indemnity costs against Intact for the Fire Loss Claim.

No costs were awarded for the dismissed claim against the Broker due to their adversarial position and the nature of their offer to settle.

Intact was awarded partial and substantial indemnity costs against Lalani for the dismissed Wall Collapse Claim, based on a public policy objective of promoting settlements.

Orchid Leasing Corporation brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and Kent & Essex Mutual Insurance Company's cross-claim against it, arguing it was not the legal owner of the tractor involved in a motor vehicle accident at the time of the incident.

The court applied the principles of summary judgment and the legal test for ownership under the Highway Traffic Act, which establishes a rebuttable presumption of ownership based on MTO registration.

The court found that Orchid had successfully rebutted this presumption by demonstrating it had transferred all indicia of ownership and control to the driver, Dhillon, prior to the accident.

Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing all claims against Orchid.

The plaintiffs sought coverage under their commercial property insurance policies for a wall collapse and a subsequent arson fire that destroyed their heritage building.

The insurer denied coverage for both claims, relying on wear and tear exclusions for the wall collapse and a vacancy exclusion for the fire.

The court dismissed the wall collapse claim, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove it was caused by a fortuitous event.

However, the court granted the fire loss claim, holding that the insurer's unilateral amendments to the policy were void under s. 124 of the Insurance Act and that the insurer was estopped from relying on the vacancy exclusion because it renewed the policy and accepted increased premiums with full knowledge that the building was vacant.

The plaintiffs were awarded over $5.8 million in damages.

A concurrent negligence claim against the plaintiffs' insurance brokers was dismissed.

The plaintiff slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk outside a post office.

Over three years later, he moved to amend his statement of claim to add several third and fourth parties as defendants to the main action.

Two of the proposed defendants opposed the motion, arguing the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable diligence in investigating the cause of the ice build-up and delayed informing his counsel about a broken eavestrough.

Factoring in the COVID-19 limitation period suspension, the court concluded the limitation period had expired and dismissed the motion against the opposing parties.