4 total
Tribunal erred in applying extra-territoriality doctrine to allow injured worker to sue out-of-province employee.
The applicants sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that allowed an injured Ontario worker to sue an out-of-province employee and his Schedule 1 employer in Ontario.
The tribunal had held that the statutory bar to civil actions under s. 28 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 did not apply because the out-of-province employee had no connection to Ontario, relying on the constitutional doctrine of extra-territoriality.
The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the tribunal misapplied the constitutional doctrine, as the legislation regulates the property and civil rights of the injured Ontario worker, not the out-of-province defendant.
The matter was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal to interpret s. 28 without the extra-territoriality considerations.
Motions for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal an order dated October 31, 2023.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.
Motion to strike granted; psychologist and children's aid society owe no duty of care to parents.
The defendants, a treating psychologist and a children's aid society, brought motions under Rule 21 to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim.
The plaintiffs' action arose from a child protection investigation and criminal charges based on allegations of abuse made by a child previously adopted by the plaintiffs.
The court struck the claim against the psychologist without leave to amend, finding she owed no duty of care to the parents of her patient and was statutorily obligated to report suspected abuse.
The court also struck the adult plaintiffs' claims in negligence and various intentional torts against the children's aid society defendants, finding no duty of care was owed to the parents during a child protection investigation.
Leave to amend was granted for claims of misfeasance in public office and Charter damages.
One co-insured cannot unilaterally cancel automobile insurance coverage affecting another co-insured without notice and consent.
The appellant lessor and the lessee were both named insureds under an automobile insurance policy.
The lessee unilaterally directed the insurer to delete all coverage except fire and theft.
The vehicle was subsequently destroyed in an accident.
The insurer denied the lessor's claim on the basis that coverage had been deleted.
The Court of Appeal allowed the lessor's appeal, holding that the insurance contract provided several, not joint, coverage.
Therefore, one co-insured could not unilaterally cancel the coverage of the other without the insurer providing 15 days' prior notice and obtaining the express or implied consent of the co-insured lessor.
