Won-Jin Kim

The appellant, acting as receiver for a yacht manufacturer, appealed the dismissal of its insurance claim against the respondent export credit insurer.

The manufacturer had not been paid for boats delivered to a U.S. dealer and to Spain.

The dealer refused to pay because the manufacturer's receivership meant it could not fulfill warranty obligations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that while the loss fell within the policy's initial coverage, the insurer successfully proved that an exclusion applied because the buyer did not pay due to a legitimate dispute regarding the export contract.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, a special needs child and his mother, brought a proposed class action against Ontario for negligence and misfeasance in public office, alleging the government unlawfully terminated special needs agreements under section 30 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the statement of claim failed to disclose a cause of action.

The court found that the statutory discretion to enter into voluntary agreements did not create a private law duty of care, and the plaintiffs failed to plead specific facts demonstrating intentional wrongdoing by a public officer required for misfeasance in public office.

The appeal was allowed and the certification order was set aside.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their motion to certify a class proceeding against the provincial government.

The action alleged negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance in public office arising from the government's decision to discontinue entering into Special Needs Agreements for profoundly disabled children.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in concluding it was plain and obvious the negligence claim could not succeed.

The court held that the statement of claim disclosed arguable causes of action and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The appellant real estate agency appealed the dismissal of its claim for commissions against the respondents.

The trial judge found the listing agreement invalid because the agent failed to leave a copy with the vendor, as required by section 35 of the Business Brokers Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

However, the Court noted the trial judge erred in concluding that failure to post the listing on MLS within two days invalidated the agreement, and that agents are required to verify a vendor's authority or sole ownership before signing a listing agreement.