Key Issues:

1. Whether the summary judgment granted in favor of Arcamm was correct, given Queen’s contributory fault defense.
2. Risk of inconsistent findings between this case and related actions.
3. Whether a genuine issue for trial exists concerning the contributory fault defense.

Case Background:

• Dispute:

  • Following an electrical outage, Arcamm was hired for emergency repairs but was paid only partially. Arcamm sued for unpaid invoices (~$1M).
  • 4342 Queen St. Niagara Holdings Inc. ("Queen") alleged Arcamm contributed to damages through improper storage of transformers, raising a contributory fault defense.

• Related Cases:

  1. Queen sued its insurer, Aviva, for coverage.
  2. Aviva subrogated Queen's claim, alleging Arcamm’s negligence caused further damages.

Decision Summary:

• The Court of Appeal overturned the summary judgment favoring Arcamm.
• The court held the motion judge erred in:
  • Failing to address the contributory fault defense adequately.
  • Overlooking the interconnected issues in related actions.
  • Proceeding without a trial when complex factual determinations were required.

Key Findings:

1. Contributory Fault:

   • The allegations (e.g., improper storage of transformers) raised legitimate triable issues that could impact the damages claimed by Arcamm.

2. Risk of Inconsistent Findings:

   • The overlapping issues in related actions posed a significant risk of conflicting judgments.

3. Requirement for Trial:

   • Conflicting evidence and expert testimony on liability warranted a trial for a fair resolution.

Disposition:

• Appeal allowed.
• Summary judgment set aside.
• Queen directed to seek consolidation of this action with the related subrogated claim. Arcamm to pay Queen $40,000 in appeal costs.