Arthur Robert Camporese

In the first phase of a bifurcated trial, the court addressed whether a 16-year-old G1 driver, Nihad Ismail, had his father Sherif's express or implied consent to operate his vehicle, and whether Sherif Ismail negligently entrusted the vehicle to Nihad.

Nihad was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving his father's car without permission.

The court found no evidence of express or implied consent, noting Nihad's subjective belief that he lacked permission and the absence of prior unauthorized use known to the father.

The court also dismissed the claim of negligent entrustment, finding that the element of "entrustment" was not established as there was no direct giving of the chattel from owner to operator.

Consequently, Sherif Ismail was not held vicariously liable under the Highway Traffic Act.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision allowing the insured to rescind a 2001 settlement of statutory accident benefits and proceed with arbitration in 2013.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's finding that the settlement was voidable because the insurer failed to comply with the disclosure requirements of the Settlement Regulation, specifically regarding the commuted value of benefits and maximum potential benefits.

Furthermore, the insured's claim was not statute-barred because the insurer's original refusal of benefits did not adequately inform her of the dispute resolution process, rendering the refusal invalid to trigger the limitation period under the Insurance Act.

The Limitations Act was also found inapplicable to the statutory right of rescission.

The applicant was injured while repairing a vehicle and applied for statutory accident benefits from Unifund, his personal auto insurer.

Unifund denied the claim, relying on the 'garage worker' exclusion, and did not initiate a priority dispute against Intact, the applicant's commercial liability insurer.

The arbitrator held that FSCO does not have jurisdiction to determine coverage exclusions in this context, as such issues must be resolved through a private priority dispute arbitration under O. Reg. 283/95.

Unifund, as the first insurer to receive the application, was ordered to respond to and adjust the claim.

The application against Intact was not dismissed to prevent further prejudice to the applicant.

The Applicant sought non-earner benefits following a 2002 motor vehicle accident.

The Insurer raised a preliminary issue that the claim was statute-barred under the two-year limitation period in s. 281.1(1) of the Insurance Act and s. 51(1) of the Schedule.

The Arbitrator found that the Insurer's Explanation of Benefits did not provide a clear and unequivocal denial of non-earner benefits, nor did it include the required notice of the dispute resolution process as mandated by Smith v. Co-operators.

Consequently, the limitation period was never triggered, and the Applicant was not precluded from proceeding to arbitration.

The appellant, who was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought retroactive attendant care benefits.

The insurer argued the claim was statute-barred because the appellant failed to mediate within two years of the insurer's determinations of the amounts it would pay.

The arbitrator agreed, finding the appellant had a positive obligation to dispute the insurer's assessments in a timely manner.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate rescinded the arbitrator's decision, holding that the limitation period under the Insurance Act is only triggered by a clear and unequivocal refusal to pay the benefit claimed.

The insurer's explanations of benefits and letters stating what it would pay did not constitute a proper refusal.

The appellant was permitted to proceed to arbitration on the merits of his claim.

The Applicant sought to add issues to the arbitration agenda and requested production of the Insurer's log notes.

The Insurer consented to adding some issues on the condition that a preliminary issue regarding a section 30(1)(b) exclusion be heard separately, and also sought production of documents and a stay of the hearing.

The Arbitrator ordered that all issues, including the preliminary issue, be added to the agenda and heard together to avoid delay.

The Arbitrator granted both production requests, requiring the Insurer to provide an Affidavit of Documents due to unusual delays, and adjourned the hearing on terms to allow the Insurer to obtain its requested records.

The appellant was injured in an accident and applied for statutory accident benefits to Unifund, and later to Intact.

Both insurers denied payment.

The arbitrator refused to combine the two arbitrations and set a preliminary issue regarding a coverage exclusion under the Unifund policy.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate found the arbitrator erred in law.

The arbitrations were combined on consent, and the preliminary issue was redefined to apply the 'nexus test' to determine if Unifund, as the first insurer to receive the application, was obliged to commence payment of benefits pending any priority dispute.

Unifund was ordered to pay the appeal costs of both the appellant and Intact.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action, the defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff provided no submissions despite being invited to do so.

After reviewing the docketed time, hourly rates for counsel and law clerk, and the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including delays in the prosecution of the action by the plaintiff, the court found the claimed costs reasonable.

The court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendant for fees and disbursements.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her motor vehicle accident claim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion judge had granted summary judgment because the appellant failed to plead facts relevant to discoverability in her statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a limitations defence must be pleaded in a statement of defence, and discoverability should be addressed in a reply, not anticipated in the statement of claim.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding when the claim was discovered and granted the appellant leave to deliver a reply.

The insurer sought an order requiring the applicant to attend a further psychiatric insurer examination to determine catastrophic impairment, as the psychiatrist who conducted the initial examination had died.

The applicant agreed to attend on the condition that the insurer fund a rebuttal assessment without a $2,000 limit.

The arbitrator found that a further examination was reasonably required in the interest of fairness.

The arbitrator also ordered the insurer to fund a rebuttal assessment without a $2,000 limit, as the applicant's right to a rebuttal assessment crystallized under the Schedule in effect at the time of the 2007 accident.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2008 and sought ongoing income replacement benefits, housekeeping benefits, and medical benefits for psychological treatment.

The insurer terminated benefits, relying on surveillance evidence and medical assessments indicating the applicant's condition had improved and he was exaggerating symptoms.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility, noting he failed to disclose a subsequent 2010 accident to assessors and attributed impairments from the second accident to the first.

The application for arbitration was dismissed, as the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in suitable employment or a substantial inability to perform housekeeping tasks.

Following a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the action was dismissed after statutory deductions eliminated the plaintiffs’ damages awards.

The defendant sought costs, arguing the trial result was more favourable than her pre‑trial settlement offer.

The plaintiffs opposed costs or sought reductions, relying on a minor damages award to one plaintiff, alleged failures to admit facts, hardship, and challenges to the defendant’s bill of costs.

The court held that the defendant, as the successful party, was entitled to partial indemnity costs throughout and rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments for offset or substantial reduction.

Certain disbursements were disallowed or reduced, and the total costs were fixed at $100,000 inclusive.

The insurer brought a motion to compel the insured to attend a neuropsychological examination under section 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and to stay the arbitration proceedings until he attended.

The insured had refused to attend, arguing his own treating psychologist should conduct the assessment.

The arbitrator found the examination was reasonably necessary to assess ongoing attendant care needs, noting the insured's last neuropsychological assessment was seven years prior.

The motion was granted, and the arbitration was stayed pending the insured's attendance at the examination.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment.

After the applicant served new catastrophic assessment reports shortly before the scheduled arbitration hearing, the insurer requested that the applicant attend updated insurer's examinations and sought an adjournment of the hearing.

The applicant refused to attend.

The arbitrator found that the new reports constituted new evidence supporting a new position, and that procedural fairness required allowing the insurer to conduct its own orthopaedic and psychiatric assessments.

The arbitration proceeding was stayed until the applicant attends the assessments, and the hearing was adjourned.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing a personal injury action as abandoned under Rule 48.15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action arose from a motor vehicle accident but had been dismissed after no statement of defence was delivered and service issues arose due to a misnomer in the defendant’s name.

Applying the contextual approach endorsed in appellate authority, the court considered factors including the explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendant.

The court found the delay was not inordinate, the error was inadvertent, the motion was brought reasonably promptly, and the defendant had not demonstrated prejudice.

The registrar’s dismissal order was set aside, the statement of claim was amended to correct the defendant’s name, and the time for service was extended.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and received statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated her income replacement benefits.

The applicant sought arbitration to determine her entitlement to post-104 week income replacement benefits.

The arbitrator found that although the applicant returned to work as a TTC fare collector and earned a comparable salary to her pre-accident employment, the new job did not reasonably reflect her pre-accident education, training, or experience.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant met the post-104 week test and was entitled to ongoing income replacement benefits, less amounts earned.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs following a motion and cross‑motion in civil litigation.

The responding party did not dispute the quantum claimed but argued that no costs should be awarded due to alleged delay in bringing the proceedings and its partial success in obtaining a stay of the action pending return of settlement funds.

The court held that repayment of the settlement funds was not contested and did not significantly factor into the motion argument.

The court further found no meaningful delay that would justify depriving the plaintiff of costs.

Partial indemnity costs were therefore awarded to the plaintiff.

Following the release of an earlier endorsement, the defendant requested an amendment to clarify that it had advanced an alternative argument that a release constituted a contract between the parties.

The defendant further submitted that the Limitations Act governed actions on contracts and that any such claim should have been commenced within six years of the contract’s formation.

The plaintiff’s counsel could not recall the specific submission and did not oppose or comment on the request.

The court accepted that the earlier endorsement should not be read as acknowledging that the action need not have been commenced within six years and clarified that the defendant had maintained that position.

The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment seeking rescission of a settlement and release relating to statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing the insurer failed to comply with disclosure requirements under s. 9.1(2) of O. Reg. 664 (Settlement Regulation).

The court held that the insurer’s notice did not adequately explain the commuted value calculation of weekly benefits and therefore failed to satisfy the regulatory disclosure requirements intended to permit meaningful comparison between periodic and lump-sum benefits.

As a result, the insured was entitled to rescind the settlement under s. 9.1(4).

The court rejected the insurer’s argument that the action was statute-barred due to lack of evidence of a clear refusal to pay benefits triggering the limitation period.

However, the action was stayed until the insured repaid the settlement funds received.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, claiming he sustained a catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The insurer denied the claim, relying on an assessment that found only mild impairments.

The arbitrator found the insurer's assessment flawed for failing to follow the AMA Guides and ignoring relevant medical documentation.

Relying on the applicant's experts and treating practitioners, the arbitrator concluded the applicant suffered marked impairments in activities of daily living, social functioning, and adaptation, qualifying as a catastrophic impairment.

The arbitrator also awarded attendant care benefits of $2,460.69 per month and interest on overdue payments.