Bruce Keay

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her claim for vehicle damage and awarding the respondent insurer damages on its counterclaim for a staged accident.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to find a conspiracy against her.

The Divisional Court applied the standard of palpable and overriding error for findings of fact, concluding the trial judge's findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits.

After the insurer terminated her benefits, she signed a full and final release in exchange for a lump sum.

She later sued the insurer for breach of contract, bad faith, and mental distress without first returning the settlement funds or proceeding to mandatory mediation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment dismissing her action, confirming that her claims were 'in respect of' statutory accident benefits and therefore subject to the mandatory mediation scheme under the Insurance Act.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for statutory accident benefits, arguing it was statute-barred because the plaintiff failed to mediate her claim and failed to return settlement funds prior to commencing the action.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for partial summary judgment for ongoing income replacement benefits.

The court granted the defendant's motion, finding that the failure to mediate and return the settlement funds deprived the court of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff's cross-motion was dismissed on the merits due to contradictory evidence regarding her disability.

The appellant settled her claims against her insurer in 2003 and signed a final release.

After a 2004 action to set aside the settlement was dismissed on consent, she commenced a second action in 2009 alleging conspiracy to cause economic harm.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment dismissing the 2009 action, finding that the six-year limitation period had expired based on the appellant's own pleadings, and that she had led no evidence to support the conspiracy claim.

The appellant appealed an order refusing leave to amend her Statement of Claim to add her insurer as a defendant.

The proposed amendment sought a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The motion judge held that while multiple applications for catastrophic impairment are not strictly precluded under s. 40(4) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, a subsequent application under the same sub-paragraph requires evidence of a material change in circumstances.

Finding no such change, the motion judge refused the amendment.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's interpretation and found no error in her decision to refuse the amendment based on the record before her.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his application for the assessment of legal accounts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the accounts of one respondent had already been assessed a decade ago, and there was no basis for ordering a reassessment.

Furthermore, the appellant provided no evidence to warrant any order against the other respondent.

The appellant, a victim of a motor vehicle accident, had her statutory accident benefits terminated by the respondent insurer.

The insurer's notice of termination advised her of the right to seek mediation but did not outline the full dispute resolution process or the relevant limitation periods.

After unsuccessful mediation, the appellant filed an action more than two years after the termination.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the two-year limitation period under the Insurance Act does not begin to run until the insurer provides a valid refusal, which requires adequate compliance with s. 71 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Because the insurer failed to inform the appellant of the complete dispute resolution process, including the right to arbitrate or litigate and the applicable time limits, a proper refusal was not given, and the limitation period was not triggered.

The appeal was allowed.

The appellant appealed summary judgment dismissing her action for ongoing statutory accident benefits as statute-barred.

The central issue was whether the insurer's termination notice complied with s. 71 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which required written notice of the procedure for resolving disputes under the Insurance Act.

The majority held that the provision required the insurer to inform the insured of the next procedural step, namely mediation, and did not require notice of the two-year limitation period for commencing arbitration or an action.

Because the insurer's notice was found compliant, the limitation defence under s. 281(5) was available and the appeal was dismissed.

A dissent would have required fuller notice, including the limitation period, and would have allowed the appeal.