David S. Wilson

Following a jury trial involving two related actions, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The court held that the same cost considerations applied to both plaintiffs in the related proceedings.

As a result, the plaintiff in this action was ordered to pay costs to the defendants.

The court fixed the costs payable at $35,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which upheld an arbitrator's dismissal of her claim for statutory accident benefits.

The arbitrator found the applicant failed to prove her conditions were caused by a 1993 motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator did not ignore evidence and reasonably drew adverse inferences from the applicant's failure to call witnesses regarding her pre-accident health.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order requiring a defendant to disclose the material information contained in a statement he gave to his insurer following a motor vehicle accident.

The statement itself was protected by litigation privilege.

The motion judge found that the order compelling disclosure conflicted with other Ontario decisions regarding whether the contents of a privileged statement must be disclosed on discovery.

Leave to appeal was granted as it was desirable for the Divisional Court to clarify when the contents of such statements are subject to disclosure.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which upheld two arbitrators' refusals to order independent medical examinations of the respondent claimant.

The arbitrators had denied the insurer's requests primarily due to the insurer's delay in seeking the examinations until the eve of or during the arbitration hearings.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the Director's Delegate reasonably concluded the arbitrators had properly exercised their discretion to refuse the examinations in the interests of fairness and preventing delay.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his claim for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's claim had no real and substantial connection with Ontario, as the only connection was the appellant's current residence in the province.

The Court further noted that the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench was the convenient forum to litigate the claim.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated them.

After an unsuccessful mediation, the appellant waited almost five years to commence an action claiming damages for the insurer's bad faith conduct in terminating the benefits.

The insurer successfully moved to strike the claim as statute-barred under the two-year limitation period in s. 281(5) of the Insurance Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that any dispute 'in respect of' an insurer's refusal to pay no-fault benefits, including bad faith claims, must be brought within the two-year limitation period.

The appellants, secured creditors of a bankrupt company, sought to amend their statement of claim in an Ontario action to allege informal liquidation and improvident realization by the respondent bank.

The respondent argued these issues were res judicata due to a prior Quebec court decision involving another creditor, in which the appellants had intervened.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellants were privies to the plaintiff in the Quebec action due to their active involvement and shared interest.

Therefore, issue estoppel applied, and the appellants were bound by the Quebec court's findings.

The appeal was dismissed, the cross-appeal allowed, and the motion to amend the statement of claim was dismissed.