Daniel Rosenkrantz

Following the release of an earlier endorsement, the defendant requested an amendment to clarify that it had advanced an alternative argument that a release constituted a contract between the parties.

The defendant further submitted that the Limitations Act governed actions on contracts and that any such claim should have been commenced within six years of the contract’s formation.

The plaintiff’s counsel could not recall the specific submission and did not oppose or comment on the request.

The court accepted that the earlier endorsement should not be read as acknowledging that the action need not have been commenced within six years and clarified that the defendant had maintained that position.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs following a motion and cross‑motion in civil litigation.

The responding party did not dispute the quantum claimed but argued that no costs should be awarded due to alleged delay in bringing the proceedings and its partial success in obtaining a stay of the action pending return of settlement funds.

The court held that repayment of the settlement funds was not contested and did not significantly factor into the motion argument.

The court further found no meaningful delay that would justify depriving the plaintiff of costs.

Partial indemnity costs were therefore awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment seeking rescission of a settlement and release relating to statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing the insurer failed to comply with disclosure requirements under s. 9.1(2) of O. Reg. 664 (Settlement Regulation).

The court held that the insurer’s notice did not adequately explain the commuted value calculation of weekly benefits and therefore failed to satisfy the regulatory disclosure requirements intended to permit meaningful comparison between periodic and lump-sum benefits.

As a result, the insured was entitled to rescind the settlement under s. 9.1(4).

The court rejected the insurer’s argument that the action was statute-barred due to lack of evidence of a clear refusal to pay benefits triggering the limitation period.

However, the action was stayed until the insured repaid the settlement funds received.