Ari Zev C Krajden

The plaintiff was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision.

The owner of the vehicle, a rental car company (2180571 Ontario Ltd. operating as "Practicar"), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim against it, arguing it was not vicariously liable for the driver's negligence.

Co-defendants, The Personal Insurance Company and PAFCO Insurance Company, opposed the motion, seeking a finding of vicarious liability against Practicar.

The court found that the individual who rented the car, despite using a fraudulent identity, was a "lessee" under the Highway Traffic Act.

Consequently, her consent to the negligent driver operating the vehicle was deemed the owner's consent, making Practicar vicariously liable.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and claims against the insurers were dismissed.

The appellant insurance company appealed a motion judge's decision finding that an unknown driver caused or contributed to a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant challenged the motion judge's credibility findings regarding a witness and argued the judge engaged in speculation rather than rational inference.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's approach, noting that the judge carefully considered the evidence and made findings based on the whole of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add claims on behalf of their minor children under the Family Law Act and to add their own insurer as a defendant under the OPCF 44 Family Protection Endorsement due to potential underinsurance of the defendants.

The insurer opposed the amendment, arguing that the claim was barred by the 12‑month limitation period under the endorsement because the plaintiffs ought to have known earlier that their damages exceeded the available $200,000 coverage.

The court considered the limitation trigger articulated by the Court of Appeal, requiring a body of evidence giving a reasonable chance of persuading a judge that damages exceed the policy limits.

On the record before the court, the medical evidence and damages assessment were insufficiently developed to determine that the limitation period had expired.

Leave to amend the claim and add the insurer was granted, with the insurer permitted to plead a limitation defence.

In a fatal motor vehicle accident action, certain defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the claims and crossclaim against them.

The evidence established that the moving defendant was travelling in his proper lane at a reduced speed in poor winter conditions when the opposing vehicle suddenly crossed into his lane.

The responding party argued that a jury might nevertheless infer negligence if the witnesses were examined at trial.

The court held that speculation about possible inferences did not create a genuine issue requiring a trial and applied the full appreciation test for summary judgment.

Finding no evidence that the moving defendant acted negligently, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the action and crossclaim against the moving defendants.