Eric Zeldin

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the jury notice in a motor vehicle accident action, arguing that civil jury trials would be unavailable for the foreseeable future due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that a jury would not represent a cross-section of the community.

The court dismissed the motion, adopting a 'wait and see' approach to allow the newly implemented Central East Region protocol for civil trials to evolve.

The court found no evidence that jury composition had deteriorated and held that striking the jury based on anticipated delay was premature.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's finding that they were engaged in a joint venture involving repeated and dangerous violations of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly instructed herself on the law of joint venture tort liability and that her finding was reasonable on the evidence.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the respondent insurer.

The defendants, Economical Insurance Group and Perth Insurance Company, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The core dispute was whether the plaintiff's newly acquired motorcycle was covered under his existing auto policy, which the defendants argued was voided because the plaintiff owned another uninsured, allegedly inoperable vehicle.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding what the plaintiff's insurance broker told him about coverage.

The court declined to order a mini-trial, concluding it would not be in the interests of justice to hear the broker's evidence piecemeal.

The insured was injured in a motor vehicle accident and was determined by a Designated Assessment Centre to have suffered a catastrophic impairment.

The insurer disputed this finding, initiated mediation, and after mediation failed, commenced a court action for a declaration that the insured was not catastrophically impaired.

The motion judge struck the insurer's claim, finding that the Insurance Act provides a complete code for dispute resolution that does not permit an insurer to initiate a court proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's appeal, confirming that the statutory scheme requires the insured to initiate court or arbitration proceedings to enforce a disputed catastrophic impairment finding, while protecting the insurer by allowing it to pay only its last settlement offer pending resolution.

The appellant appealed a jury's allocation of fault in a motor vehicle accident case, arguing the negligence particulars were unsustainable and that the respondent's opening address was highly prejudicial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the negligence particulars were supported by the pleadings and evidence.

While the opening address was improper, the trial judge's clear and blunt corrective instruction to the jury was sufficient to cure the prejudice.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits after she was injured when her car rolled down a parking garage ramp.

She had stepped out of the car to use a key box, leaving the engine running.

When the car began to roll, she chased it and tripped, sustaining injuries.

The insurer denied benefits, arguing the incident was not an 'accident' under the Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the use and operation of the automobile directly caused the impairment, as the applicant's fall was part of an uninterrupted chain of events beginning with the use of the vehicle.

The preliminary issue was resolved in favour of the applicant.

Allstate sought to appeal an arbitrator's preliminary decision that collateral benefits were not available to the respondent, Mr. Torok, because his application to the collateral insurer was out of time.

The Director's Delegate rejected the appeal pursuant to Rule 46.2 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, which generally prohibits appeals of preliminary orders until all issues are finally decided.

The Delegate found that the appeal was not compelling on its face, involved factual disputes, and would likely delay the scheduled entitlement hearing, causing prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant was injured in three motor vehicle accidents and received statutory accident benefits from the insurer.

The insurer terminated weekly income replacement benefits, arguing the applicant was only entitled to a non-earner benefit.

At a preliminary issue hearing, the insurer argued the applicant had an income continuation benefit plan available to him through his former employer.

The arbitrator found that the applicant did not have collateral benefits available to him because he applied for long-term disability benefits outside the limitation period without any tactical intent to hide information.

Furthermore, the eligibility test under the collateral disability policy was stricter than the test under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The deceased was fatally injured in a motor vehicle accident.

Her former common law spouse claimed entitlement to the $25,000 death benefit under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The deceased's children disputed his entitlement, arguing the spousal relationship had terminated prior to the accident.

The arbitrator held that under section 224 of the Insurance Act, unmarried parties are only spouses as long as they continue to cohabit.

Since the parties had separated and ceased cohabiting before the accident, the former common law spouse was not a spouse at the time of the accident.

The death benefit was ordered payable to the deceased's children.