Our firm served as lead counsel on this case seeking the dismissal of various claims and a declaration that the plaintiffs' had commenced numerous actions alleging issues that had already been decided. We were successful in having the plaintiffs declared vexatious litigants and therefore unable to commence any new actions without prior court approval.
Our firm successfully defended our client in this motor vehicle jury trial where it was found that our client did not cause or contribute to the plaintiff's injuries.
This action involved a fire loss of the plaintiff's hotel and the alleged failure of the insurer to pay indemnity in circumstances where it would be liable for bad faith and thus consequential damages. The action was dismissed against the insurer on the facts and upheld by the Court of Appeal. This is a leading decision dealing with the circumstances when consequential damages might be payable by an insurer for breach of an insurance policy and the circumstances under which a bad faith claim may succeed.
Following a successful defence of this school liability case before a jury in 1998, our firm was the respondent at the Court of Appeal where the Appellant Court found no errors on the part of the Trial Judge and dismissed the Appeal with costs.
Our firm defended the insurer in a case brought by the insured for payment of the proceeds of a property damage policy and business interruption insurance policy.
Our firm successfully appealed a Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court of Canada on the “use and operation” of a motor vehicle that arose out of an unusual hunting accident.
Our firm defended a case involving an injury at a Home Depot Store. Although the plaintiff was successful in her claim on liability, we were able to defeat the claims for past loss of income and a substantial future loss of income.
Kelly Hart successfully defended at trial the Township of Champlain against allegations of negligent building inspection stemming from work undertaken 20 years earlier.
Eric Williams and Kelly Hart successfully represented a contractor, Castonguay, in a motion seeking to dismiss Castonguay’s third party claim against its engineer, Zenix, who argued that the claim ought to be precluded on the basis that if Castonguay had obtained the insurance required by way of its contract with the owner (Plaintiff), Zenix would have been a beneficiary of that insurance.
The Court found that even if Castonguay had obtained the insurance, it was not was not plain or obvious that a claim for contribution or indemnity by Castonguay related to the services of Zenix would be precluded. Zenix was not afforded the benefit of the covenant to insure as it was not party to that agreement nor was it obvious that the parties to the contract intended to extend the benefits of insurance coverage to the losses involved. The motion to dismiss the claim as frivolous or vexatious was denied.
Tara successfully brought a priority dispute against Economical and Unifund for the payment of accident benefits. The claimant was a minor child and a passenger in a loaner vehicle driven by his father at the time of the accident. The vehicle had been provided by a garage while the mother’s vehicle was being repaired. The garage vehicle was insured by Aviva at all material times. His parents each had individual policies of insurance with Economical (father) and Unifund (mother). Priority had been denied on the basis that Aviva was equal in priority as a temporary substitute automobile and that the minor child was not “principally financially dependent” on one of his parents. Arbitrator Bilakowski found that the minor child was dependent on his parents as named insureds under the Economical and Unifund policies. As such, Economical and Unifund were ahead of Aviva in priority and the claimant has the unexercised discretion as to which of the two insurers were to provide benefits.
