Derek Victor Abreu

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order extending the time for the respondents to serve their statement of claim.

The statement of claim was issued just before the limitation period expired but was not served until more than four years later, and the respondents failed to provide the 120-day statutory notice under s. 258.3 of the Insurance Act.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's finding of no irremediable prejudice, and noting that the potential disregard of the statutory notice requirement is an issue of public importance.

The individual plaintiff, an owner-operator for an American trucking company, was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Ontario.

His tractor was insured by a foreign property damage insurer and a foreign liability insurer that had filed an undertaking to be bound by the Ontario Insurance Act.

The property damage insurer paid for the repairs and brought a subrogated tort action against the at-fault drivers.

The Court of Appeal held that section 263 of the Insurance Act bars all tort actions for property damage against a negligent party.

Because the insured's right of action was extinguished by the statute, the insurer's derivative subrogated claim was also barred.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision denying them leave to issue a third party claim.

The motion judge had relied on the decision in Misko v. Doe.

The appellants conceded their appeal rested entirely on the proposition that Misko v. Doe was wrongly decided.

As the Court of Appeal recently dismissed the appeal in Misko v. Doe, this appeal was also dismissed.

The appellant, a motor vehicle lessor, was sued after an accident involving its leased vehicle driven by an excluded driver.

The respondent insurer denied coverage based on an OPCF 28A Excluded Driver Endorsement signed by the lessees.

The insurer had provided the appellant with a certificate of insurance noting the endorsement but failed to deliver a copy of the endorsement itself.

The Court of Appeal held that under section 232(3) of the Insurance Act, an insurer must deliver a copy of every endorsement to the insured.

The insurer's failure to do so precluded it from relying on the endorsement, triggering its duty to defend and indemnify the appellant.

The appellant landlord appealed a jury award of punitive damages arising from its continuing failure to maintain and repair the respondent's apartment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury properly identified an independent actionable wrong based on the landlord's highly reprehensible conduct.

The respondent's cross-appeal on costs was allowed, as the trial judge erred in failing to apply Rule 49.10 after the judgment exceeded the respondent's offer to settle.

The respondent was awarded substantial indemnity costs for the trial and costs of the appeal.

The minor appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Quebec while a resident of Ontario.

The appellants sued the at-fault driver and their own insurer under the uninsured motorist coverage of their Ontario automobile policy.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action against the insurer, finding that Quebec's no-fault legislation applied and barred the tort claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under the lex loci delicti rule, Quebec substantive law applied.

Because Quebec's no-fault regime precluded any tort claim against the driver, the appellants were not 'legally entitled to recover' damages from her, which is a precondition for accessing uninsured motorist coverage under s. 265(1) of the Insurance Act.

The plaintiff suffered permanent vestibular toxicity after being treated with the antibiotic Gentamicin for a severe sinus infection.

At trial, the otolaryngologist was found liable for failing to properly monitor for ototoxicity and failing to emphasize the need for ongoing vigilance regarding symptoms.

The trial judge also granted a non-suit dismissing the action against the home care nurses (VON).

On appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned the finding of liability against the doctor, concluding there was no evidence that the two-to-three-day delay in discontinuing the medication caused the plaintiff's injuries.

The Court also rejected an alternative argument based on lack of informed consent, finding that a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would have continued the medication.

The appeal against the VON was dismissed as no expert evidence established the standard of care for home care nurses.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for leave to appeal a summary judgment costs decision to the Divisional Court.

The underlying action involved a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff claimed $1.5 million in damages.

The motion judge dismissed the motion for want of jurisdiction, finding that the proposed appeal did not fall within the monetary limits or other provisions of section 19(1) of the Courts of Justice Act governing the Divisional Court's jurisdiction.

No costs were awarded for the motion as the responding parties failed to address the jurisdictional issue.

The plaintiff brought a motion to have the defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's cross-appeal heard together in the Court of Appeal.

The defendant had appealed only the $16,750 punitive damages portion of a $148,143.50 judgment to the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal held that under s. 19(1)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act, jurisdiction turns on the total amount of the final order, not the amount in issue on the appeal.

Because the final order exceeded $25,000, the appeal and cross-appeal were properly brought to the Court of Appeal.

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.