Christopher Scotchmer

An appeal concerning the determination of priority between overlapping insurance policies following a motor vehicle collision.

The central issue was the identity of the "lessee" of a rental truck under section 277(1.1) of the Insurance Act.

The application judge found that the driver was the lessee based solely on the face of the rental agreement.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that agency principles must be considered when determining the identity of the lessee, and concluded that the company for which the driver was working was the true lessee based on the surrounding circumstances and the longstanding arrangement with the rental company.

This case involves an application and cross-application concerning the entitlement to $100,000 in proceeds from an after-the-event (ATE) legal protection insurance policy.

The primary applicant, Peter B. Cozzi Professional Corporation, sought a declaration that the proceeds belonged to the client, Quoc Nguyen, and were assignable to Cozzi for disbursements.

The cross-applicant, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, sought a declaration that it was entitled to the proceeds to satisfy an adverse costs order against Nguyen.

The court found that the contingency fee agreement (CFA) between Cozzi and Nguyen was unenforceable due to Nguyen's disability and lack of proper court approval or litigation guardian involvement.

Consequently, Cozzi was not entitled to apply the proceeds to his disbursements.

The court also found that Aviva had no entitlement to the proceeds under the ATE policy due to lack of privity of contract.

Both applications were dismissed, and the proceeds were ordered to remain in trust pending a determination of who should act on behalf of Mr. Nguyen for their disposition.

This case involves an application and cross-application concerning the entitlement to $100,000 in proceeds from an after-the-event (ATE) legal protection insurance policy.

The primary applicant, Peter B. Cozzi Professional Corporation, sought a declaration that the proceeds belonged to the client, Quoc Nguyen, and were assignable to Cozzi for disbursements.

The cross-applicant, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, sought a declaration that it was entitled to the proceeds to satisfy an adverse costs order against Nguyen.

The court found that the contingency fee agreement (CFA) between Cozzi and Nguyen was unenforceable due to Nguyen's disability and lack of proper court approval or litigation guardian involvement.

Consequently, Cozzi was not entitled to apply the proceeds to his disbursements.

The court also found that Aviva had no entitlement to the proceeds under the ATE policy due to lack of privity of contract.

Both applications were dismissed, and the proceeds were ordered to remain in trust pending a determination of who should act on behalf of Mr. Nguyen for their disposition.

The applicant and respondent insurers disputed priority over a personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident involving a rented truck.

The driver, who was delivering furniture for his employer, rented the truck in his own name, though the employer's credit card was used for payment.

The court applied a straightforward contractual analysis to determine the 'lessee' under section 277(1.1) of the Insurance Act, concluding that the driver was the lessee because he signed the rental agreement and was the party the rental company could sue for enforcement.

Consequently, the applicant, as the insurer for the rental company, was declared the first loss insurer.

The plaintiff brought a tort action for a motor vehicle collision.

After a jury awarded nominal general damages (less than the statutory deductible) and past loss of income (reduced to zero by collateral benefits), the defendant brought a threshold motion to declare the plaintiff not entitled to non-pecuniary damages.

The court determined the threshold issue was not moot, despite the net zero award, for costs purposes.

The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a permanent serious impairment of an an important physical, mental, or psychological function, largely due to the plaintiff's exaggeration of symptoms and the expert witness's lack of impartiality.

Consequently, the defendant's threshold motion was granted, and the plaintiff's total damages were reduced to zero.

The defendant was deemed the successful party and awarded costs and disbursements.

The moving parties in a proposed securities misrepresentation class proceeding sought court approval of a third‑party litigation funding agreement prior to certification.

The proposed agreement provided that the funder would pay certain disbursements and indemnify the plaintiffs against adverse costs in exchange for a capped commission from any settlement or judgment.

The court considered the developing law on litigation funding, including concerns about champerty and maintenance, and confirmed that such agreements are not categorically unlawful but require judicial approval.

Finding that the agreement preserved counsel’s independence, protected defendants through security for costs, and promoted access to justice, the court approved the funding arrangement.