David H. Sookram

The plaintiffs were involved in a motor vehicle accident when a third party swerved to avoid an unidentified driver and collided with their vehicle.

After the limitation period expired, the plaintiffs successfully moved to add the third party as a defendant under rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The third party appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that adding the third party as a defendant would cause significant prejudice due to the 'one percent rule' regarding unidentified motorist coverage, and that the motions judge erred in finding special circumstances.

The insured was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received Statutory Accident Benefits until a dispute arose.

After commencing litigation, the parties settled at a private mediation.

The insured later retained new counsel and successfully moved to rescind the settlement, arguing the insurer failed to comply with disclosure requirements under section 9.1 of the Automobile Insurance Regulation.

The insurer appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 9.1 does not apply to settlements reached after litigation has commenced.