A. Leckey

During a jury trial concerning entitlement to life insurance proceeds, the court issued a mid‑trial ruling on when a life insurance contract takes effect under s. 180(1) of the Insurance Act.

The dispute concerned whether the policy came into force on its stated effective date or only upon delivery, payment of the first premium, and the absence of any change in insurability.

The court held that ambiguous language in the application’s signature form did not displace the statutory requirements.

The contractual references to an “effective date” related only to the calculation of policy benefits and time periods, not the date the policy came into force.

Accordingly, s. 180(1) governed and the policy would only take effect if there had been no change in insurability between application and delivery.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an order that the trial of a motor vehicle negligence action against the provincial transportation authority proceed in Hamilton rather than Peterborough, where the accident occurred.

The claim alleged highway disrepair under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

The court considered the statutory presumption under s. 33(9) that such actions be tried in the county where the default occurred, alongside the discretionary factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

After weighing the location of witnesses, the plaintiffs’ disabilities, the location of treating professionals, and the comparative convenience and costs of each venue, the court concluded that the interests of justice favoured Hamilton.

The presumption in favour of the accident location was rebutted due to the significant hardship and logistical inefficiencies associated with holding the trial in Peterborough.