Dennis Ong

The applicants sought an order declaring that the respondent insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify them in an underlying trip and fall action.

The incident occurred during a gap period between written service contracts with a landscaping contractor insured by the respondent.

The applicants argued an implied contract existed during the gap period.

The court dismissed the application, finding it fatally flawed because the landscaping contractor was not named as a respondent and could not have a ruling made against its interests without an opportunity to be heard.

The defendants, an athlete and a national sports organization, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for damages arising from alleged harassment and assault.

The defendants argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff had already pursued a complaint under the organization's internal disciplinary code, making the civil action an abuse of process or collateral attack.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the internal disciplinary process did not have the authority to award compensatory damages for tortious conduct, and therefore did not oust the jurisdiction of the civil courts.

The defendant insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action, arguing it was brought outside the one-year limitation period set out in the Insurance Act and the standard automobile insurance policy.

The plaintiff argued the claim was not for breach of contract, but for breach of the insurer's independent duty of good faith, which is subject to the basic two-year limitation period.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that based on the pleadings, the bad faith claim is separate and distinct from a claim under the insurance contract, and therefore falls outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant and respondent insurers disputed priority over a personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident involving a rented truck.

The driver, who was delivering furniture for his employer, rented the truck in his own name, though the employer's credit card was used for payment.

The court applied a straightforward contractual analysis to determine the 'lessee' under section 277(1.1) of the Insurance Act, concluding that the driver was the lessee because he signed the rental agreement and was the party the rental company could sue for enforcement.

Consequently, the applicant, as the insurer for the rental company, was declared the first loss insurer.