Christopher Peter Klinowski

An appeal concerning the validity of an excluded driver endorsement in an automobile insurance policy.

The insured's driver's license was suspended, and she arranged insurance with the respondent on the basis that she would be an excluded driver.

After her license was reinstated, she drove the vehicle and had an accident.

The appellant, the injured parties' uninsured motorist carrier, sought a declaration that the insured was fully covered, arguing the excluded driver endorsement was void because it was not in a form pre-approved by the Superintendent of Financial Services under section 227(1) of the Insurance Act.

The court held that non-compliance with section 227(1) is a matter for the superintendent, not the courts, and that the use of an unapproved form does not necessarily invalidate the contractual agreement between the parties regarding exclusion from coverage.

This is a costs decision following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiff's action against the defendant Vincenza Tartaglia was dismissed.

Ms. Tartaglia claimed costs totaling $33,858.86 for the summary judgment motion and the action.

The plaintiff objected to the claim, citing delays caused by another defendant and disputing several disbursements.

The court found Ms. Tartaglia's claim modest and reasonable, disallowed the specific disbursements but increased the counsel fee by an equal amount, ultimately allowing the full claimed costs.

Following a motion in a civil action, the court addressed costs after written submissions were invited.

Only the responding party, a proposed defendant, filed submissions seeking partial indemnity costs.

Applying the general principle that costs follow the event and the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the time spent by counsel was not manifestly unreasonable and that the matter had not been overly lawyered.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis in favour of the successful responding party.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to change the location of an alleged slip and fall and to add a new corporate defendant as the owner or landlord of the premises.

The court held that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of reasonable diligence to discover the identity of the proper defendant within the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court also rejected reliance on the doctrine of special circumstances, noting binding appellate authority that the doctrine cannot extend a limitation period.

The proposed amendment could not be justified as a correction of a misnomer under s. 21(2) because the amendment would alter the underlying material facts and the proposed defendant could not reasonably have known it was the intended defendant.

The motion to amend and add the party was dismissed and the derivative Family Law Act claims were also barred.