4 total
Summary judgment granted dismissing plaintiff's action where plaintiff rear-ended defendants' stopped vehicle.
The plaintiff brought an action for damages arising from a rear-end motor vehicle collision where he struck the defendants' vehicle from behind.
The defendants and the plaintiff's insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.
The court found that the physical evidence and the consistent testimony of the defendants established that the defendants were stopped at a red light when struck.
The plaintiff's evidence was inconsistent and evolved over time.
Applying the test for summary judgment, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, found the plaintiff entirely at fault, and dismissed the action.
Application for judicial review of FSCO decision denying statutory accident benefits dismissed; burden of proof remains on insured.
The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by a Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which upheld an arbitrator's denial of statutory accident benefits.
The applicants argued breaches of procedural fairness, incorrect application of the burden of proof, improper judicial notice, and failure to accept uncontradicted medical evidence.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Delegate's decision reasonable in all respects.
The court affirmed that the burden of proof rests on the insured to establish entitlement to benefits and does not shift to the insurer.
Appeal dismissed for the reasons of the motion judge.
The appellant, CAA Insurance Company (Ontario), appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for the reasons given by the motion judge.
Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $12,000.
Summary judgment order set aside and matter sent to trial as genuine issues existed.
The plaintiff contractor brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a consultant's certificate for payment after a fire destroyed a construction project.
The motion judge denied summary judgment but proceeded to make determinations of law on other legal issues, ordering the parties to appoint a new consultant to determine the amount owing.
The defendants appealed, and the plaintiff cross-appealed.
The Court of Appeal set aside the motion judge's order, finding that the motion judge erred by treating the summary judgment motion as a trial on the record and determining issues that should have been sent to trial.
The Court ordered all issues to be tried.
