Brandon Straitman

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for coverage of water damage to her property.

The insurer argued that the policy's vacancy exclusion applied because the plaintiff, who had moved to a retirement home due to cognitive impairment, had no intention of returning.

The court found that the plaintiff lacked the capacity to form an intention to return and that there was no objective plan for her to do so.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue for trial regarding the vacancy exclusion and granted the summary judgment motion, dismissing the action.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Baltman J. dated November 29, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,222.67.

At a pre-trial for a motor vehicle accident case, the parties sought direction on how to proceed given the defendant had delivered a jury notice prior to the January 1, 2020 amendments to Rule 76.

The Master held that the new Rule 76 and section 108 of the Courts of Justice Act prohibit jury trials in simplified procedure actions.

Consequently, actions with pre-2020 jury notices must be converted to the ordinary procedure to preserve the right to a jury trial.

The appellant purchased a damaged vehicle at an auction on an 'as-is' basis, later discovering it was allegedly branded incorrectly.

He sued the auctioneer and the insurance company for negligent misrepresentation in Small Claims Court.

The motion judge struck the claim under Rule 12.02, finding no reasonable prospect of success because the appellant could not prove reasonable reliance given the clear disclaimers and his own mechanic's inspection.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's decision.

The intervener insurer brought a motion to determine whether it could deny coverage based on an Excluded Driver Endorsement signed by the defendant driver.

The court found that the form used by the insurer was not the standard form approved by the Superintendent of Financial Services, as it failed to list the specific vehicles to which the exclusion applied.

Furthermore, the insurer failed to prove it had delivered a copy of the endorsement to the insured upon renewal.

The court held the insurer could not rely on the unapproved form and is obligated to defend and indemnify the defendant.

Following a global private mediation resolving claims arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff executed Minutes of Settlement and full and final releases settling long‑term disability and tort claims with two insurers.

Several weeks later the plaintiff attempted to resile from the settlements, asserting she had been fatigued, in pain, and under stress during mediation.

The insurers moved for judgment enforcing the settlements.

The court held that a change of heart or “buyer’s remorse” is not a valid basis to set aside a settlement and found no evidence of duress, incapacity, lack of authority, or unconscionability.

The settlements were therefore enforced and judgment granted in accordance with their terms.