The plaintiffs’ house burned down while it was being built in 2012. They made a claim to their insurer under their home owners’ policy, which settled in 2013 for an amount less than the policy limit. They were allegedly advised by their insurer at the settlement meeting that they could sue their broker for negligence to recover further amounts. They signed a final release at that time. On the two year anniversary of the claim settlement, the plaintiffs commenced this action against their insurer and its outside lawyers, for negligent misrepresentation they alleged occurred during the settlement meeting. Their insurer brought a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the final release was a complete bar to the action and that the two-year limitation period started on the day of the fire and therefore the claim was not brought in time. Justice Lococo dismissed the motion, holding that there were triable issues that could not be decided on summary judgment. Regarding the release, he held that the insurer ought to have put forth affidavit evidence from each claims advisor that was present at the subject settlement meeting. Regarding the limitation period, he held that the claim was for negligent misrepresentation by the insurer at the settlement meeting, not the fire, and that the claim was brought within two years of that action arising.
The Plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion seeking payment for repair costs of a rented vehicle that was damaged in an accident while it was being rented by the Defendant. The Defendant attempted to rely on the damage waiver in the rental car contract on the basis that the rental vehicle was allegedly stolen during the rental period. The rental agreement also provided that the damage waiver was invalidated in certain circumstances (e.g. where the renter failed to return the original ignition key or ensure that the vehicle ignitiation was turned off at the time of the theft). Justice McArthur found that the Defendant had failed to prove that he returned the original ignition key and did not ensure that the vehicle was turned off at the time of the theft. As such, summary judgment was granted to the Plaintiff.
In this case, a lawyer, Brunning, allegedly defamed another lawyer, Wallbridge. Brunning was practicing “in association” with the Williams law firm. The Williams firm brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the claim, on the basis that it was not vicariously liable for Brunning’s alleged defamation. The motion court granted the motion. On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed on the basis that this was a novel and important area of law and that it ought to be decided at trial on a full record.
The Defendant tavern had a bus service that picked up, and later dropped off, cottage country patrons. On the return voyage, an argument broke out and the security guard on the bus called the police and asked for the police to meet the bus at the drop-off spot. When the bus arrived at the drop-off location, the police were not there. The driver and security guard let the Plaintiff off the bus first so that he could escape, but the Plaintiff did not leave. The Plaintiff was subsequently beaten and sustained a serious head injury. The motion judge granted the Defendants’ summary judgment motion. The Ontario Court of Appeal found that the motion judge had incorrectly applied the standard of care analysis, set the decision aside, and ordered the matter to trial.
The Plaintiff alleged injuries as a result of obtaining laser treatment at a clinic. The Defendants sought summary judgment in relation to the negligence claim on the basis of a signed consent/release. They also sought summary judgment in relation to the breach of contract and vicarious liability claims. Justice Allen denied the motion in relation to negligence on the basis that the signed release was not equivalent to a waiver of liability for negligent treatment. Justice Allen granted summary judgment in relation to the breach of contract claim on the basis that the Plaintiff had not provided expert evidence to support the claim. The motion with respect to vicarious liability was denied as Justice Allen felt that there were genuine factual issues requiring a trial.
The Plaintiff was a tradesman and fell while performing work on the roof of the Defendants’ home. The Defendants brought a motion for summary judgment. Justice Broad granted the motion on the basis that a tradesman is presumed to know how to perform roofing work and to be aware of the necessary safety equipment required to perform that work. Justice Broad went on to state that even if there was evidence that the Plaintiff was inexperienced in roofing work, and the Defendants were aware of this, it did not require the Defendants to provide safety equipment or to supervise the Plaintiff to ensure that he used it.
In this case, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant after he was pushed in a parking lot and broke some teeth. The Plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment and delivered an affidavit which included correspondence between his father and the Defendant’s father. In the correspondence, the Defendant’s father apologized for the injury. The Plaintiff took the position that the apology was an admission of liability. Pursuant to the Apology Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c.3, Justice Charney found that the portions of the affidavit relying on the apology were inadmissable and could not be taken into account in determining liability.
The Plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on vinyl flooring in Toronto Community Housing that was installed in the hallway in front of her apartment. She had resided at this apartment for nine years. On a summary judgment motion, Justice Sanfilippo dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim due to a lack of objective evidence of any unsafe condition that could be found to have caused the Plaintiff’s slip and fall.
The Plaintiff brought an action in relation to a slip and fall incident at a Longo’s grocery store. The Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that there was no genuine issues requiring a trial. Justice Diamond ruled in favour of the Defendants and held that the video of the incident showed that the dimensions of the curb were not causally related to the Plaintiff’s fall. Justice Diamond was critical of the evidence put forward by the Plaintiff, particularly the lack of an affidavit setting out her first-hand evidence that could support expert opinion regarding the cause of the fall. Rather, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted an affidavit attaching a copy of the Plaintiff’s transcript from her discovery. Justice Diamond held that this was in violation of the Rules of Civil Procedure and was inadequate to discharge the Plaintiff’s onus “to lead trump” on the motion.