Alex represented the Defendant All Star in a trial in relation to an insurance dispute, in which
the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed in its entirety against All Star. Alex then successfully
argued that the Plaintiff’s ought to pay enhanced costs as a result.
Kelly Hart, succeeded in representing the Respondent Desjardins Insurance in having this Appeal
dismissed on the issue of whether the underlying Arbitrator erred in determining that Economical
Insurance, and not Desjardins Insurance, was liable to pay Statutory Accident Benefits following a
priority dispute re: two catastrophically injured pedestrians. This successful Appeal followed an initial
successful arbitration before Arbitrator, B. Carroll on the priority dispute.
Kelly Hart, succeeded in representing the Appellant at the Court of Appeal, as the Court set aside the
decision of the Superior Court Application Judge who the Court states fell short of the full analysis
required to impose a duty to defend. The Application was sent back to the Superior Court for a rehearing,
where Mr. Hart was successful in having it dismissed in favour of his client.
A'er successfully having the original Application decision set aside at the Court of Appeal, Kelly Hart
was successful as counsel for the Respondent in defeating a duty to defend rehearing Application
brought by the National Art Gallery. The Court found that no allegations against the Applicant had any
bearing on the Respondent and that therefore neither the respondent, nor their insurer owed the
Applicant any duty to defend. The Application was dismissed with costs payable to the Respondent.
Jeremy successfully represented our client in her appeal to the Social Security Tribunal of Canada
(General Division). Our client was denied employment insurance benefits a+er the Canada Employment
Commission accepted our client’s employer’s allegation that it terminated our client for “misconduct”.
The Tribunal agreed with Jeremy’s submissions and overturned the Commission’s denial of our client’s
employment insurance benefits.
Jeremy successfully represented the Estate Trustee in resisting the Plainti;’s motion for occupancy at
the deceased’s principal residence. The Court agreed with Jeremy’s submissions that the Plainti; did
not qualify as a “dependant” under the Succession Law Reform Act and held: “[the deceased] was not
providing support or under legal obligation to provide support immediately before her death”. The
Court agreed with Jeremy’s submission that the Plainti;’s evidence on the deceased’s support
obligations was sparse and awarded the Plainti; only $200/month in support, which was later
overturned on an appeal to the Divisional Court and the motion was dismissed in its entirety.
Jeremy successfully brought a motion to compel the Plaintiff to post security for costs in this action against our client. The motion judge granted the motion after agreeing that the Plaintiff’s claim of impecuniosity was “completely unreliable” and the claim was “almost certain to fail” on the merits. The action was later dismissed on a motion for the Plaintiff’s failure to post the security that was ordered.
Jeremy successfully represented a physiotherapist against several complaints to the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario. The Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“the Committee”) undertook a thorough review of the evidence and arguments of the parties, and was persuaded to take no action in relation to any of the complaints. The Applicant appealed the decision to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld the Committee’s decision upon appeal.
Jeremy successfully represented one of the defendants against the plainti;’s motion for a further
discovery of our client. The Court agreed with Jeremy’s submissions that the a;idavit evidence the
plainti; relied on had several deficiencies, and that the plainti; was unable to show that the further
discovery being sought would be useful, reasonable, or proportionate. The motion against our client
was dismissed with costs.
Jeremy successfully represented the Defendant Golf Course against the Plainti; who brought a motion
for an interlocutory injunction. The Plainti; alleged that an unreasonable amount of golf balls were
landing on his property and brought a motion to the Court seeking an Order that the Defendant Golf
Course be prohibited from allowing golf balls from landing on his property, amongst other things. The
Court agreed with all of Jeremy’s submissions and dismissed the motion against our client. The Court
awarded costs to our client, which were nearly 3 times lower than the costs incurred by the plainti; in
bringing his unsuccessful motion.
