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.
Tara Lemke successfully brought a summary judgment motion on behalf of the funeral home to strike the Plaintiff’s claim in its entirety. This case arose from the tragic demise of the Plaintiff’s son in a car crash and a dispute between the Plaintiff and his estranged former spouse over how the deceased’s remains were to be dealt with. The Plaintiff claimed against the funeral home for breach of contract, deceit and intentional infliction of mental distress. Justice Gomery concluded that the evidence presented did not support the causes of action being alleged and granted the motions for summary judgment brought on behalf of each of the Defendants.
Tara successfully defended this LAT dispute relating to various treatment plans and post-104 income replacement benefits. The Adjudicator accepted her argument that the Applicant’s alleged psychological difficulties were caused by other life stressors and not the sequellae from the accident. While the Applicant’s back pain was found to be causally related to the accident, it was not sufficient to lead to a complete inability within the meaning of the post-104 IRB test.
This was a classic David-and-Goliath scenario. Mr. Ward was terminated by one of the country's largest financial institutions after 30 years of service-and had his retirement monies withheld. Eric Williams led the team that successfully represented Mr. Ward's case: the defendant corporation was ordered to pay Mr. Ward what he was owed as well as damages for breach of contract and fiduciary duty-and the second-highest punitive damages ever awarded in a commercial case in Canada.
This case involved a novel issue involving the law of restitution. Chris Reil successfully represented the bank, which the court held was entitled to recover monies it had paid out to a customer’s creditor under a mistake of fact.
This case was one of a series of actions started against "social hosts" represented by Eric Williams from trial to the Supreme Court of Canada. In what the Globe and Mail called one of the most significant cases of 2007, Williams Litigation Lawyers successfully defended the hosts of a social gathering after one of their guests caused a serious motor vehicle accident- leading to a precedent-setting Supreme Court of Canada statement on individual responsibility and alcohol consumption. Legal observers have opined that this may be the most important tort case in Canada in thirty years.
