Crosslinx Transit Solutions Constructors v. Capital Sewer Serving Inc., 2021 ONSC 


The application required to resolve a potential conflict between the contractual indemnity that Capital gave Crosslinx on the one hand and a covenant by Crosslinx to parties higher up in the contractual pyramid that it would obtain a “Wrap Up”  CGL policy that covered all of its contractors and subcontractors as Named Insureds. 


Young v. Innovative Capital Protection, 2021 ONSC 


The plaintiffs’ claim is for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and disclosure of confidential information based on the terms of an agreement relating to the sale of a critical illness insurance (“CII”) plan. The plaintiffs claim that the Innovative Capital defendants took confidential information from the plan and used it to compete with them unfairly during the applicable period of a non-competition agreement. They further allege that the defendant Prekupec, as counsel for one of the plaintiffs, obtained confidential information improperly and then assisted the defendants in misusing the information.


Giammaria v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2021 ONSC


This is a motion by Economical Mutual Insurance Company (“Economical”), for an order, pursuant to section 128(5) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990. C. I.8 for the appointment of an umpire. It was heard in writing on consent of the parties. The action arises out of an alleged water loss, which took place at 24 Grenadine Court in North York, Ontario on or about August 8, 2018. This is a rental property owned by the plaintiffs (the “Giammarias”).


McDonald v. Belleville (City of), 2021 ONSC


This is a motion brought by the defendants pursuant to Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike out the plaintiff’s statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.  The jurisprudence regarding the test to applied on such motions is well-established.  A claim must be struck if it is plain and obvious, assuming the facts pleaded as true, that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action:  R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42 at para. 17.  The requirement for it to be “plain and obvious” that a claim has no merit is intended to ensure that novel claims that may have merit are not prevented from moving forward since every development in the common law was novel once:  Imperial Tobacco at para. 22.  A large and liberal interpretation of the claim under review is required to ensure that potentially meritorious novel claims are not nipped in the bud before they have an opportunity to blossom.

CRD v. Aviva, 2021 ONSC


In the Application at bar the Applicants seek an order declaring that the Respondents or one of them must defend the Applicants on a Counterclaim. The Applicants further seek an order that the Respondents or one of them must reimburse the Applicants for legal fees, including disbursements, on a full indemnity basis incurred in defense of the Counterclaim from the date the Respondents were put on notice of the Counterclaim. Interesting discussions on language of ROR and what constitutes waiver of certain rights under policy.


Hordo v. Zweig, 2021 ONSC


The present claim (the Zweig Action) is a solicitor’s negligence action brought by the plaintiffs Diana Hordo (Diana) and Michael Hordo (Michael) (collectively, the Hordos) against the defendant Arnold H. Zweig (Zweig). The Hordos had been represented by Zweig in two matters.


Rebel News v. Al Jazeera Media, 2021 ONSC


In late November 2019, the plaintiff Rebel News Network Ltd. (“Rebel”) commenced this proceeding against Al Jazeera Media Network (“Al Jazeera”) seeking damages for defamation in the amount of $500,000.00, plus punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of $100,000.00. Rebel’s cause of action arises out of allegedly defamatory statements contained in an internet article and YouTube video published by Al Jazeera on or about September 29, 2019.  Rebel alleges that within the said article and video, Al Jazeera published three, separate defamatory statements.


Geldhof v. Absolute Exterior Solutions Inc., 2021 ONSC


When it is all about discussing and raising the “litigation privilege”. Must read!


Firby v. Intact Insurance Company, 2021 ONSC 


The Applicant brings this Application pursuant to R. 7.08 seeking an order of the court approving the Accident Benefit settlement of Laila Firby.  Ms. Firby is a party who is disabled within the meaning of Section 6 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

Price v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 2021 ONSC


The tragic events giving rise to the proposed class action, which events have come to be known as the “Danforth Shooting,” were that a M&P®40 handgun, which does not utilize “authorized user” or “smart gun” technology was stolen. Some excellent discussions on negligence, product liability, public nuisance, and strict liability.