Christopher J. Prince

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action against his father, the vehicle owner, on the basis that the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident on February 5, 2012, and commenced an action on January 31, 2014, initially against the deceased occupants' estates but not against his father.

The appellant later added his father as a defendant in October 2014.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim against the father as statute-barred, finding the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption that he knew of the matters required for discoverability on the date of the accident.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, holding that the appellant was presumed to know the vehicle owner's identity and that an action against the owner was an appropriate remedy as of the accident date.

The applicant, Intact Insurance Company, sought a declaration that the respondent, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, was obligated to defend and indemnify Charlie Youssef, or at least be responsible for the first $200,000 in damages, following a motor vehicle accident.

Aviva had denied coverage to the vehicle owner, Michael Youssef, alleging material misrepresentation and that the policy was void ab initio because the car was added to the policy after the accident.

The court found that the Aviva policy was effective on the date of the accident, as no specific time was stated, and that Section 258 of the Insurance Act mandates an insurer's liability for the first $200,000 in damages to third parties, regardless of policy voidance due to misrepresentation.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on liability following a motor vehicle accident.

The court found the defendant driver negligent for driving too fast for conditions, losing control, and crossing into oncoming traffic.

The registered owner and beneficial owner (parents of the driver) were found vicariously liable under the Highway Traffic Act.

Claims of contributory negligence against the plaintiff driver were dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The matter was ordered to proceed to trial for assessment of damages and the threshold issue under the Insurance Act.