Christopher P. Klinowski

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add a snow removal contractor as a defendant in a slip and fall action, after the expiry of the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiffs relied on the doctrine of discoverability, arguing they only learned of the contractor's involvement upon receiving the statement of defence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the plaintiffs exercised reasonable diligence to identify the contractor within the limitation period, as they failed to make any inquiries about snow removal services.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident while a passenger in a car driven by an unlicensed 15-year-old.

The vehicle was owned by the driver's aunt, who was out of the country and had left the car at her sister's house.

The aunt brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action against her, arguing she was not vicariously liable under s. 192 of the Highway Traffic Act because the vehicle was in the driver's possession without her consent.

The court reviewed the extensive case law on express and implied consent to possession.

The court found that the aunt had entrusted possession to her sister, but the sister's possession was interrupted when the son took the vehicle without consent.

As there was no express or implied consent for the driver to possess the vehicle, the owner was not vicariously liable.

The motion for summary judgment was granted.

Following a prior ruling determining vehicle ownership and insurance coverage arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident, the court addressed the costs consequences of that decision.

The court had previously found that both spouses were owners of the vehicle and that their respective insurers were each liable for $1,000,000 in coverage rather than sharing a single limit.

In this costs decision, the successful plaintiffs and certain insurers sought partial indemnity costs of the motion and related proceedings.

The court held that the unsuccessful defendants’ denial of coverage necessitated the involvement of multiple insurers and justified costs awards in favour of the successful parties.

Joint and several costs were ordered against the unsuccessful parties in specified all‑inclusive amounts.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision, seeking declarations that two separated spouses were both owners of the vehicle under s.192 of the Highway Traffic Act and that their respective insurers each provided $1,000,000 in liability coverage.

The court held that indicia of ownership demonstrated that the driver was an owner of the vehicle despite the other spouse being the registered owner.

The court further held that consent between co‑owners was legally irrelevant where one owner operated the vehicle, making both owners liable.

Applying principles of equitable contribution and the Insurance Act, the court concluded that both owner policies were primary and each insurer was liable up to its policy limit, making $2,000,000 potentially available to satisfy the loss.

The plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment was granted and the co‑owner’s motion for summary judgment was dismissed.