Brian Michael Bangay

Eight consolidated actions arising from a motor vehicle accident on November 30, 2021, in London, Ontario, in which the defendant driver failed to stop at a red light and struck members of the London 120th Brownies, killing one child and injuring several others.

The court determined whether the defendants' personal liability umbrella policy constituted a motor vehicle liability policy under the Insurance Act and the OPCF 44R Family Protection Coverage endorsement.

The court held that the umbrella policy was not a motor vehicle liability policy and therefore the defendants were inadequately insured motorists.

The plaintiffs were entitled to access their own OPCF 44R coverage, with the aggregate available insurance limits of $2.3 million to be divided pro rata among all eligible claimants.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an action against the Regional Municipality of Durham for failing to keep a roadway in a reasonable state of repair, following a motor vehicle accident that caused life-altering injuries to the plaintiff.

The trial judge found the road was not in a state of non-repair and did not pose an unreasonable risk to an ordinary reasonable driver, also noting the driver's excessive speed and distraction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error of law in the trial judge's analysis.

The appellate court affirmed that the trial judge correctly applied the four-part test for municipal negligence, considering the driver's conduct as one factor among others in assessing the road's condition relative to an ordinary reasonable driver, without conflating the driver's negligence with the road's state of non-repair.

This costs endorsement followed a trial where claims of negligence against a regional municipality were dismissed, along with related Family Law Act claims and a cross-claim.

The successful municipality sought partial indemnity costs.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01, including the complexity, importance, and length of the 23-day trial, as well as the conduct of counsel and the financial circumstances of the unsuccessful plaintiffs.

The court found the municipality's requested costs somewhat high and the opposing parties' proposals somewhat low.

A total partial indemnity costs award of $365,000.00 (inclusive of fees and disbursements) was made in favor of the municipality, apportioned 65% to the plaintiffs and 35% to the co-defendant, whose interests were largely aligned with the plaintiffs due to a Mary Carter agreement.

Following successful summary judgment motions dismissing a motor vehicle accident action as statute‑barred, the defendants sought costs of the action.

The plaintiff had commenced the claim approximately eleven years after the accident and the court previously found she had not exercised due diligence under the discoverability principles governing limitation periods.

In this costs decision, the court applied s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 57.01 and 57.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding no misconduct or exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the default rule that costs follow the event, the court declined to award substantial indemnity but fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants were awarded their requested partial indemnity costs as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The defendants brought summary judgment motions seeking dismissal of a motor vehicle accident claim on the basis that the action was commenced outside the limitation period under the Limitations Act.

The plaintiff issued the claim nearly nine years after the accident and argued that discoverability did not arise until later diagnostic imaging revealed more serious injuries.

The court held that the plaintiff had ongoing and worsening symptoms for many years and failed to exercise due diligence in investigating the possibility of a serious and permanent impairment.

Applying the discoverability principles and relevant appellate authority, the court concluded that a reasonable person would have investigated the injuries much earlier.

The claim was therefore statute‑barred and summary judgment was appropriate.

The defendants brought a statutory “threshold motion” under s. 267.5 of the Insurance Act during a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The issue was whether the plaintiff had sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function sufficient to overcome the statutory bar to non‑pecuniary damages under Ontario’s auto insurance regime (Regulation 381/03, Bill 198).

The court assessed conflicting medical evidence regarding alleged chronic pain, spinal injury, and psychological impairment.

The court found the plaintiff lacked credibility, failed to comply with treatment recommendations, and that surveillance evidence undermined his reported limitations.

Preferring the defence orthopedic expert’s opinion that no objective pathology explained the complaints, the court held the plaintiff failed to meet the statutory threshold.