5 total
The Fund may recover pre-arbitration expenses in court via unjust enrichment when insurers accept priority without arbitration.
The Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery, operating the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund, sought to recover pre-arbitration expenses from two insurers who had accepted priority for Statutory Accident Benefits claims without proceeding to arbitration.
The insurers argued that the Fund was required to arbitrate the dispute and that pre-arbitration expenses were not recoverable.
The Superior Court of Justice held that the 'proper case' exception allowed the Fund to seek restitution in court because there was no dispute over the payment of benefits to arbitrate.
The court found that the insurers were unjustly enriched by the Fund's investigative work and ordered them to reimburse the Fund for its pre-arbitration expenses.
Summary judgment denied on limitation period and duty of care for police liability in pedestrian collision.
The plaintiff was struck by a car while walking home on a highway after a New Year's Eve party.
He sued the driver and later commenced a second action against the OPP and others.
The Crown (HMK) moved for summary judgment, arguing the second action was a nullity for lack of notice under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, and that a third action commenced after proper notice was statute-barred.
The court granted summary judgment dismissing the second action as a nullity but dismissed the motion regarding the third action, finding the plaintiff rebutted the presumption of discovery on the date of the accident.
The court also found a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the police owed a private law duty of care to the plaintiff given their knowledge of the party and intoxicated pedestrians on the highway.
Appeal from LAT dismissed; adjudicator's finding that no motor vehicle accident occurred was supported by evidence.
The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his claim for accident benefits.
The LAT adjudicator had found the appellant credible but concluded there was insufficient corroborating evidence to prove his injuries were caused by a motor vehicle accident.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and holding that the adjudicator's findings of fact were amply supported by the record.
The Crown can be compelled to provide documentary and oral discovery in actions under the PTHIA.
The defendants in a motor vehicle collision action brought a third party claim against the Crown (HMQ) for negligent road maintenance.
The defendants moved to compel HMQ to provide documentary and oral discovery.
HMQ argued that the claim was barred by the WSIA and the PTHIA, and that there is no right of discovery against the Crown under the PTHIA.
The court held that s. 33(7) of the PTHIA contemplates discovery rights against the Crown and that HMQ had also voluntarily agreed to discovery.
HMQ was ordered to deliver its list of documents and attend an examination for discovery.
Appeal dismissed as abandoned after appellants' counsel failed to appear without adequate explanation or documentation.
The appellants' counsel failed to appear for the appeal hearing, with an assistant citing counsel's illness.
The Court of Appeal noted a lack of supporting medical documentation and expressed serious doubts about the veracity of counsel's position.
The court refused a request for an adjournment, dismissed the appeal as abandoned, and awarded costs to the respondents.
