Deborah Joan McPhail

Two Ontario residents injured in separate accidents outside Ontario involving an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and a dirt bike sought statutory accident benefits (SABs) under their Ontario automobile insurance policies.

Both insurers denied coverage, arguing that the definition of "automobile" under Ontario law should be determined by the law of the jurisdiction where the accidents occurred (lex loci delicti).

The Court of Appeal held that Ontario law applies to the interpretation of Ontario contracts and statutes, and that the definition of "automobile" in the Insurance Act and Off-Road Vehicles Act applies uniformly regardless of where the accident occurs.

Both vehicles qualified as automobiles under the extended definition because they would have required insurance if operated in Ontario under the Off-Road Vehicles Act.

The court allowed the appeal of the insured and dismissed the appeal of the insurer.

The Ontario Nurses Association (ONA) brought a motion under the CCAA seeking an order to restructure the Victorian Order of Nurses for Canada (VON Canada) pension plan.

The ONA proposed transferring assets and liabilities related to VON Ontario employees into a new pension plan and sought a declaration that VON Ontario was not jointly and severally liable for any pension deficits.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the ONA's proposal did not advance the CCAA's policy objectives of fostering going concern restructuring and avoiding liquidation.

The court also applied the business judgment rule, deferring to VON Canada's board decision to maintain the status quo, and deemed the request for a declaration on future liabilities premature and speculative.

The defendant was charged under the Insurance Act of Ontario with acting as an unlicensed insurance agent.

The prosecution alleged that the defendant offered or assumed to act in the negotiation of insurance on behalf of an insurer without being a licensed agent or broker.

The defendant claimed she was merely a go-between connecting the complainant with another party and was at best a salesperson.

The court found that the defendant engaged in multiple communications, discussions, and meetings with the complainant, took copies of his driver's license and vehicle ownership, arranged for delivery of fraudulent insurance documents, and received payment.

The court rejected the defendant's credibility and found her guilty of acting as an unlicensed insurance agent in violation of section 393(23) of the Insurance Act.

On an unopposed insolvency motion under Part III of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the moving parties sought sanction of an amended consolidated proposal with substantive consolidation and a broad third-party release.

The court applied the section 59(2) reasonableness-and-benefit test, considered good faith and creditor voting support, and accepted that the proposal met statutory requirements.

The court held that third-party releases were permissible in the circumstances and interpreted the statute harmoniously with restructuring principles applied under related insolvency legislation.

Applying the Metcalfe criteria, the court found the release was necessary, supported by tangible contributions, and beneficial to creditors generally compared with bankruptcy alternatives.

The sanction order was granted.