V. Krkachovski

The plaintiffs sued the City of Barrie and several of its employees for misfeasance in public office and intentional interference with economic relations.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants unlawfully interfered with their negotiations to lease a portion of their property to Rogers Communications for a cell phone tower.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the city employees did not engage in deliberate unlawful conduct or intend to harm the plaintiffs.

The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to prove causation or damages, as Rogers had other options and the lease contained an escape clause.

Following a train derailment and tankcar failure, the main action was settled.

The remaining parties brought summary judgment motions regarding third-party claims and contractual indemnity.

The court ruled that opinions in a Transportation Safety Board report are inadmissible, but factual observations are admissible.

The court also interpreted an indemnity clause under Illinois law, finding it did not require the lessee to indemnify the lessor for the lessor's own negligence.

Finally, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the third-party claim against the maintenance contractor, finding no evidence of a duty to inspect the failed welds and that the claims were barred by the US doctrine of preemption.

The plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident tort action sought to schedule a motion for partial summary judgment regarding contributory negligence and non-pecuniary general damages.

The trial was already fixed for a few months later.

The court refused to schedule the motion, finding that allowing some damages claims to proceed by summary judgment while others went to trial risked inconsistent findings and duplication of evidence.

Applying the principles of proportionality, timeliness, and affordability, the court concluded that scheduling the motion shortly before trial was not appropriate.

Following settlement of personal injury claims arising from a motor vehicle–pedestrian collision, a defendant sought an order apportioning the plaintiffs’ party-and-party costs between two groups of defendants.

The moving party argued the other defendants should bear a greater share because its insurer’s contribution enabled settlement and protected the others from personal exposure.

The responding parties argued that insurance considerations were irrelevant and proposed equal contribution.

The court held that it was unnecessary to determine whether insurance was a relevant factor and instead relied on the pleadings and the Negligence Act principle that where relative fault cannot be determined, parties are deemed equally at fault.

Costs were therefore apportioned equally between the taxi defendants collectively and the other defendants.