Alan L. Rachlin

Following a motor vehicle accident, the insured received statutory accident benefits until his insurer terminated payment and an arbitrator found that most of his health problems were not caused by the accident.

In the subsequent tort action against the tortfeasor, the motion judge held that the plaintiff was issue estopped from relitigating causation because the tortfeasor was a privy of the insurer.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the statutory scheme under the Insurance Act creates separate alternative proceedings and does not support importing issue estoppel from SAB arbitration into the tort action.

The respondent had no right to participate in the arbitration and lacked the sufficient identity of interest required for privity.

The appeal was allowed and the arbitral findings were held not binding in the personal injury action.

The appellant municipality appealed the dismissal of its third party claim against residential owners and occupants after a pedestrian allegedly slipped on a snow-covered public sidewalk.

The court held that the summary judgment motion was not premature because the third party respondents were entitled to challenge the legal sufficiency of the pleadings at the outset.

Applying the common law duty analysis and the framework governing statutory breach, the court held that owners of property adjacent to public sidewalks owe no common law duty to clear snow and ice absent special circumstances such as assumed control over the sidewalk or hazards emanating from their property.

The municipal by-law requiring snow clearing did not impose civil liability or displace the municipality's statutory duty under the Municipal Act.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The respondents were involved in a motor vehicle accident and initially diagnosed with soft tissue injuries.

More than two years later, a CT scan revealed a herniated disc, prompting them to commence a tort action.

The appellant argued the action was statute-barred under the two-year limitation period in the Highway Traffic Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the discoverability principle applies to the limitation period.

Because the right of action does not arise until the injury meets the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act, the limitation period does not begin to run until the material facts of sufficient injury are reasonably discoverable.

The appeal was dismissed.