Graham F. Sirman

The applicant university brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent sports organization from releasing a tribunal decision regarding a football player's eligibility.

The applicant argued that the parties had previously reached a settlement agreement wherein the respondent agreed not to pursue the eligibility complaint.

The court found it had jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement under contract law.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found a strong prima facie case of a binding settlement, irreparable harm to the players and the university's reputation if the injunction was denied, and the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.

The interlocutory injunction was granted.

George Robins, widower of Sylvia Robins, sought judgment for damages against Wayne Kenneth Wagar under s. 61 of the Family Law Act after Wagar was noted in default.

Sylvia Robins was killed in a car accident caused by Wagar, who was uninsured, unlicensed, and impaired.

The court assessed damages for loss of care, guidance, companionship, and significant past and future attendant care, considering Mr. Robins' legal blindness and hearing impairment, which made his wife his primary caregiver.

The court awarded $390,000 in damages, plus $4,500 for costs, acknowledging prior settlements with other defendants and an insurer.

The appellants appealed an order granting the respondent interim costs of $35,000 in an oppression remedy action under the Business Corporations Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that s. 249(4) of the Act does not grant jurisdiction to order an individual to pay interim costs.

The court also found that the motion judge erred in concluding that the corporate appellants were affiliated with the target corporation, as the evidence did not support a finding of control other than by way of security.

The order for interim costs was set aside.

The appellant was injured when the lower arm of a boom attached to a commercial vehicle failed while he was trimming trees.

The insurer denied statutory accident benefits, arguing the vehicle was being used as a tree-trimming device, not an automobile.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, finding that the attached boom and bucket were integrated into the use of the vehicle.

Because the insurer did not use an OPCF-30 endorsement to exclude coverage for attached machinery, the injury arose from the use or operation of an automobile, meeting the definition of an 'accident' under the Schedule.

The applicant was injured when the boom of a bucket truck failed while he was trimming trees.

He applied for statutory accident benefits from the insurer of the truck.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' as defined in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the injuries were caused by the use of the tree-trimming device, not the use or operation of an automobile, and therefore the applicant was not involved in an 'accident' within the meaning of the Schedule.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that its action under s. 132 of the Insurance Act was barred by the limitation period in paragraph 4 of the insurance contract.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court, noting there was no contractual language or conduct by the parties that would warrant departing from this result on public policy grounds.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $4,500.

The insured applied for arbitration after the insurer terminated his income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The insurer subsequently commenced a court action seeking repayment of the IRBs, alleging wilful misrepresentation or fraud.

The insurer then brought a motion to add the issue of repayment to the ongoing arbitration.

The insured objected, arguing the issue was not mediated and was the subject of an existing court action.

The arbitrator granted the insurer's motion, finding that under the amended section 282(3) of the Insurance Act, the arbitrator has jurisdiction to determine all issues in dispute.

The arbitrator held that the repayment issue reasonably and consequentially flowed from the mediated issue of entitlement to IRBs, and permitted the insurer to add the issue provided it withdrew the related court action to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.