Anna-Marie Musson

The defendant insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim under the uninsured provisions of his automobile insurance policy.

The plaintiff alleged the accident was caused by an unidentified vehicle, but his own evidence and initial reports contradicted this, attributing the rear-end collision to his own faulty driving.

The court found no corroborating material evidence of an unidentified vehicle's involvement, as required for claims over $200,000, and insufficient evidence to establish a triable issue for claims under $200,000.

The motion was granted, and the action dismissed.

The insured was involved in two motor vehicle accidents and claimed statutory accident benefits.

After disputes arose, the insured elected to have her claims determined by a FSCO arbitrator.

The parties attended a settlement meeting where the insured signed a release for $165,000, but she subsequently sought to rescind the settlement, claiming she did not understand its finality.

The insurer applied to the Superior Court of Justice for a declaration that a binding settlement was reached.

The court dismissed the application, holding that under the Insurance Act, once an insured elects arbitration, the FSCO arbitrator has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all questions of fact and law, including whether a binding settlement was reached and whether it was validly rescinded.

The insurer applied for a determination of whether s. 45 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule requires an insured to identify a single accident when applying for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The insured had been involved in three motor vehicle accidents and submitted a single OCF‑19 application claiming catastrophic impairment based on the cumulative effects of all three accidents.

The court interpreted the legislation and regulatory scheme and concluded that the catastrophic impairment determination must be anchored to a single identified accident.

However, the insured may still rely on the cumulative impact of prior accidents where the specified accident represents the tipping point leading to catastrophic impairment.

The court therefore granted the application in part and declared that the application must specify one accident.

An insurer applied for judgment enforcing a settlement agreement governing loss transfer claims under s. 275 of the Insurance Act.

The respondent insurer argued the applicant breached the agreement by failing to submit indemnity requests quarterly and asserted it was discharged from further performance.

The court interpreted the settlement term as requiring quarterly submissions where file activity existed and found the applicant breached the provision in some instances.

However, the breach was classified as a breach of warranty rather than a fundamental term, and time was not of the essence.

The respondent was therefore not entitled to terminate the agreement and remained obligated to pay properly submitted claims.