David L. Silverstone

In a motor vehicle accident case, the appellant's insurer appointed defence counsel under a non-waiver agreement.

Following a trial on liability, the insurer sought to intervene in the appeal to challenge a finding regarding insurance coverage, while a co-defendant moved to remove the appellant's counsel for conflict of interest.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to remove counsel, finding an inescapable conflict between the interests of the appellant and the insurer who instructed counsel to appeal the coverage finding.

The motion to intervene was dismissed because the insurer failed to show it would be adversely affected by the judgment and bore responsibility for the confusion at trial.

The moving parties brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order dismissing their motion for leave to appeal a costs order.

They argued they were denied natural justice regarding submissions on the responding party's impecuniosity and that the trial judge erred in considering impecuniosity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the motions judge applied the correct test for leave to appeal, made no error in principle, and properly considered impecuniosity as a relevant factor in awarding costs.

The plaintiff sought damages for negligence arising from a motorcycle collision in which a rider lost control, crossed the centre line, and struck the plaintiff’s vehicle, causing death and serious injury.

The court considered whether two other motorcyclists riding with the deceased rider were negligent and contributed to the accident.

Evidence included their guilty pleas under the Highway Traffic Act and video footage showing excessive speeds, unsafe lane changes, and stunt riding during the group ride.

The court found that the three motorcyclists were engaged in a joint venture involving unlawful and dangerous driving that created a foreseeable risk of serious harm to other road users.

The two defendants were each found 25 per cent liable for the plaintiff’s damages, jointly and severally.

The applicant, a self-represented litigant, moved to set aside an order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal that dismissed her motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision.

The underlying action involved a personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant also sought to compel the production of an article used by an expert at trial and to set aside the Divisional Court's costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no error in the single judge's discretionary ruling that the proposed appeal raised issues of significance only to the parties.

The court also held that the production request should have been made at trial and found no reversible error in the costs award.

The appellant insurer appealed a declaration that it was the first insurer to respond to tort claims arising from a single-vehicle accident involving a rented vehicle.

The renter, who was a passenger at the time, sued the rental company and the uninsured driver.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the renter's standard automobile policy was not 'available' to respond to claims against the owner and driver of the rented vehicle, as the policy only provided coverage for liability asserted against the renter.

The appellant insurer sought to preserve the evidence of three experts regarding the cause of an infant's injuries before an action was commenced.

A previous application was dismissed because Rule 36.01 did not allow for preservation of evidence prior to the commencement of a proceeding.

Following an amendment to Rule 36.01 that expanded the definition of a party, the insurer brought a new motion.

The motion judge dismissed it on the basis of res judicata.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the change in the law constituted special circumstances justifying an exception to res judicata.

The court ordered the examination of two experts who had examined the vehicle, but not the expert who only reviewed medical records.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding there was evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to prove the respondent was at fault.

The appeal regarding damages was not considered as liability was not established.