Gavin Wood Freitag

The appellants sought a declaration that their insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify them in an underlying action for misrepresentation related to a property sale.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding no duty to defend.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the application judge erred in relying on an "entire agreement" clause to deny coverage for negligent misrepresentation claims.

However, the Court upheld the dismissal on an alternative ground: the appellants' failure to provide prompt notice of the claim to the insurer, which constituted a breach of the policy and was not eligible for relief against forfeiture.

This action arose from a motor vehicle accident.

The primary issue at trial was whether the vehicle owner, Crystal Vincent, had given implied consent to Riley Sabourin, an unlicensed driver, to possess her vehicle at the time of the accident.

The court considered the long-term relationship between the defendants, Ms. Vincent's knowledge of Mr. Sabourin's past unauthorized driving, her failure to secure keys, and her general admonishments rather than explicit prohibitions.

The court found that Ms. Vincent failed to discharge her onus to prove lack of implied consent, concluding that Mr. Sabourin was justified in deeming he had implied consent.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically requesting a neuropsychological assessment and chiropractic treatment.

The insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 statutory limit had been exhausted.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing medical condition that would prevent her from achieving maximal recovery under the MIG.

Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans.

The applicants were injured in a propane explosion inside a homemade camper affixed to a pick-up truck.

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

The arbitrator found that camping and cooking with a propane stove inside a truck/camper are ordinary and well-known activities to which such vehicles are put.

The arbitrator concluded that the injuries were directly caused by the use or operation of the vehicle, and therefore the applicants were injured in an 'accident' as defined in the Schedule.

The applicants sought death benefits following the death of the insured in a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the applicant and the insured had not cohabited continuously for three years and were therefore not spouses under the Insurance Act.

The arbitrator found that despite maintaining separate residences for a portion of the three-year period, the parties lived together as a family unit, shared domestic chores, and were financially interdependent.

The arbitrator concluded the parties were spouses and awarded death benefits to the applicant and her daughter.