2 total
Insurer may compel examination under oath under multi‑peril homeowners policy.
The insurer brought a motion compelling the insured and her spouse to attend an Examination Under Oath and requiring delivery of a sworn Proof of Loss under a homeowners insurance policy.
The insured argued that such a requirement was unlawful because the statutory conditions in the Insurance Act applied and prohibited additional conditions beyond those prescribed by statute.
The court held that the policy was a multi-peril homeowners policy rather than a fire insurance policy, and therefore the statutory conditions in Part IV of the Insurance Act did not apply.
Relying on Supreme Court of Canada and Ontario authority, the court found that the insurer was entitled to enforce the contractual examination requirement.
The insured was ordered to attend the Examination Under Oath and deliver a sworn Proof of Loss.
Appeal dismissed; corporate defendant's pleadings struck for failing to retain counsel as ordered.
The corporate defendant appealed an order striking its statement of defence for failing to comply with an interlocutory order requiring it to retain new counsel or obtain leave to be represented by a non-lawyer.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge made no error in concluding the defendant's recalcitrance and failure to comply with the clear terms of the order warranted the severe penalty of striking its pleadings.
