Damien Van Vroenhoven

The applicant sought a declaration that he was entitled to insurance coverage under his policy with Security National Insurance Company following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant had been driving with an expired driver's license at the time of the accident, which occurred after he suffered a sudden medical episode.

Security National denied coverage on the basis that the applicant was not authorized by law to drive.

The applicant argued he had established the defence of due diligence to the offence of driving without a valid license, alternatively seeking relief from forfeiture.

The court granted the application, finding that the applicant had demonstrated due diligence and was entitled to insurance coverage.

The defendants and third party moved to enforce a settlement agreement reached on November 12, 2024, at an exit pre-trial conference.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, sought to repudiate the settlement, alleging that her lawyer, Eli Karp, lacked authority to settle and that the settlement was procured under duress with overbroad release language.

The court found that the parties entered into a binding settlement with all essential terms agreed upon, that Karp had both actual and ostensible authority to settle, and that the settlement was not procured under duress or through misrepresentation.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments regarding the adequacy of the settlement amount and the scope of the releases, finding them to be standard and reasonable.

The motion to enforce the settlement was granted.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether arbitrators may order a higher-priority automobile insurer to reimburse a lower-priority insurer for pre-arbitration expenses incurred in handling a Statutory Accident Benefits (SABs) claim, outside the specific circumstances set out in Ontario Regulation 283/95.

The court held that, except in cases of improper deflection as provided in s. 2.1(7) of the regulation, arbitrators do not have authority to order such reimbursement.

The appeal was allowed, restoring the arbitrator’s decision that Unifund was not required to reimburse Echelon for its pre-arbitration expenses.

The appellant, Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, appealed an arbitrator's decision concerning a reimbursement claim against the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

Wawanesa sought reimbursement for Statutory Accident Benefits paid to an individual involved in a snowmobile accident, whose vehicle was later found to be uninsured.

The arbitrator partially denied Wawanesa's claim and ordered Wawanesa to pay the Fund's legal and administrative costs, finding that Wawanesa had grossly mishandled its adjusting responsibilities and failed to hold benefits in trust as required by SABS provisions due to a pending criminal charge.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed Wawanesa's appeal, upholding the arbitrator's findings that there were no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors in the application of the law to the facts, including the arbitrator's discretion in awarding costs.

The appellant Fund appealed an Arbitrator's decision finding that a taxi company's SPF 6 insurance policy was not a 'motor vehicle liability policy' under the Insurance Act, and therefore did not include Statutory Accident Benefits (SABs).

The court found that while the Arbitrator erred in law by concluding that a corporation is not a 'person' under the Act, the Arbitrator made no palpable and overriding error in determining that the taxis were not driven by employees, agents, or on behalf of the taxi company.

The court upheld the finding that an SPF 6 commercial general liability endorsement is not a motor vehicle liability policy intended to carry SABs.

The appeal was dismissed.