Dana Yoon

Economical Insurance Company brought a motion to be added as a statutory third party under s. 258(14) of the Insurance Act.

The court granted the request to add Economical as a third party and amend the style of cause.

However, the court declined to grant Economical's requests for orders directing that the coverage issue be determined after the liability trial and that Economical's involvement be kept from the jury, finding such orders premature and better left to the discretion of the trial judge.

An appeal concerning whether the abuse of process doctrine prevented Federated from leading evidence that a driver was insured at the time of an accident, despite a prior conviction for driving without insurance.

The driver's vehicle had been insured by Intact, which claimed it had cancelled the policy before the accident.

A priority dispute between the insurers proceeded to arbitration.

The arbitrator permitted Federated to lead evidence that Intact had not followed required cancellation procedures, meaning the driver was in fact insured.

The application judge reversed this decision, but the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the arbitrator's order, holding that the abuse of process doctrine did not prevent relitigation in these circumstances.

The plaintiff was bitten by the defendant's dog, losing part of her thumb, after the dog suffered a seizure and fell into a ditch while the plaintiff was walking it.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing the plaintiff was in 'possession' of the dog and thus an 'owner' precluded from claiming compensation under the Dog Owners' Liability Act.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for summary judgment on liability.

The court held that novel questions of law can be decided on summary judgment.

The court found the plaintiff was not in 'possession' of the dog as she did not exercise dominion and control similar to an owner.

The court found the defendant strictly liable under the Act, dismissed the negligence claim as the injuries were not reasonably foreseeable, and found no contributory negligence by the plaintiff.

The defendant's motion was dismissed and the plaintiff's cross-motion was granted, with the action to proceed to trial on damages only.