Dwain Carlton Burns

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for a declaration that Economical Insurance held a valid and enforceable policy for a vehicle involved in a motor vehicle accident that caused catastrophic injuries to one of the plaintiffs.

Economical brought a cross-motion for a declaration that any claim regarding the accident was invalid and the right of recovery forfeited, citing the insured's failure to disclose material changes in risk, including the driver's G2 license status, a license suspension, and exclusive possession of the vehicle.

The court found that significant credibility issues regarding the driver's residency and vehicle use precluded a determination by summary judgment.

Instead of dismissing the motions, the court directed a "mini-trial" under Rule 20.04(2.2) to resolve these specific factual disputes.

The defendant brought a motion to adjourn a pre-trial conference to allow for defence medical assessments.

The plaintiff had served new and supplementary medical reports late, making it difficult for the defendant to comply with the 90-day expert report deadline before the scheduled pre-trial.

The court granted the adjournment, emphasizing the importance of trial fairness and the defendant's right to adequately respond to the plaintiff's medical evidence, noting that the plaintiff's delay contributed to the need for the adjournment.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion to set aside a noting in default and default judgment, the court determined the costs payable to the plaintiffs.

The court noted the defendants' unreasonable litigation behaviour, including relitigating past issues and making baseless allegations.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiffs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $13,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendants moved to set aside a noting of default and default judgment, which had been granted after years of "bad litigation behaviour" and failure to comply with court orders, including payment of costs.

The original claim involved the defendant Rose Venneri Donatelli misrepresenting herself as a qualified psychologist with a Ph.D. The court applied the Healey factors for setting aside default judgments, finding the default intentional, the motion untimely (2.5 years after judgment), and no arguable defense on the merits.

The court emphasized that allowing the defendants to continue would be an affront to the integrity of the administration of justice, given their repeated non-compliance and the fact that the underlying judgment had been upheld through multiple appeals.

The motion was denied.

The plaintiff was injured in a motorcycle accident caused in part by an unidentified driver.

He failed to report the accident to the police or his insurer within the time limits prescribed by the Uninsured Automobile Coverage regulation.

The trial judge granted the plaintiff relief from forfeiture under s. 129 of the Insurance Act and apportioned liability 60% to the plaintiff and 40% to the unidentified driver.

The insurer appealed the relief from forfeiture and the liability apportionment, while the plaintiff cross-appealed the liability apportionment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, holding that failure to give timely notice constitutes imperfect compliance for which relief from forfeiture is available, and that the trial judge's liability findings were supported by the evidence.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal regarding insurance coverage for stolen marijuana plants, the respondent insurer sought costs.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs, noting that while the respondent was entirely successful, the legal issues were novel and there was no guiding precedent.

Costs were fixed at $6,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, reflecting a modest allowance for junior counsel.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action against their homeowners' insurance provider for the theft of medical marijuana plants from their backyard.

The insurer had paid out a limited amount under the 'landscaping' extension but denied full coverage under the 'personal property' provision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that while the stolen plants became personal property upon being detached from the ground, they were not 'usual to the ownership or maintenance of a dwelling' as required by the policy.

The appellant insurer appealed the trial judge's findings that the respondent qualified for non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident and that the benefits were payable for four years.

The respondent cross-appealed, claiming ongoing entitlement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of entitlement, noting that post-accident employment does not disqualify a claimant but serves as a point of comparison under the Heath test.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the duration of benefits, reducing the payment period to approximately two years and three months based on medical assessments showing significant improvement.

The defendant insurer brought a Rule 21 motion seeking determination of a question of law regarding the interpretation of a homeowner’s insurance policy after thefts of medical marijuana plants grown by the insured.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment on liability and argued the plants were covered as personal property under the policy’s general contents coverage.

The court held that the specific policy provision addressing “trees, shrubs and plants” governed and limited recovery to $1,000 per plant.

The court rejected the argument that the plants fell under the broader contents provision and also found that the grow‑operation exclusion did not apply to the theft of the plants themselves.

As the insurer had already paid the maximum amount permitted under the policy, the plaintiffs’ additional claims were dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $5,000 to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict finding her 90 per cent liable for a motor vehicle accident.

The jury concluded that the appellant was not paying attention and collided with the rear of the respondent's vehicle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was an evidentiary basis for the jury's findings and the verdict was not so plainly unreasonable and unjust that no reasonable jury could have reached it.

The defendants appealed a condition imposed by a motions judge on an order compelling the plaintiff to attend defence medical examinations.

The plaintiff, injured in a motor vehicle accident, had previously been examined by experts retained by the statutory accident benefits insurer.

The motions judge upheld the order for tort medical examinations but added a condition prohibiting the defendants from calling the accident benefits experts at trial.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and struck the condition, finding that the motions judge erred by interfering with the Master's discretion without finding an error in principle, and by preempting the trial judge's statutory discretion regarding the number of expert witnesses.

The appellants appealed a Master's order granting summary judgment in favour of the respondent defendants in a multi-vehicle accident case.

The Master had dismissed the claims against the respondents, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding their liability.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that conflicting evidence regarding the number of impacts and the sequence of collisions raised genuine issues for trial that should not be resolved on a summary judgment motion.