Greg Van Berkel

The appellants' parked motor vehicle was destroyed by a fire allegedly caused by a transmission fluid leak.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action as statute-barred by the two-year limitation period in s. 206(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, relying on the binding precedent of Karakas v. General Motors of Canada Ltd. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while there was arguable merit to the appellants' claim that Karakas was at odds with Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, the court was not asked to overrule Karakas and the present case could not be distinguished from it.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision, arguing that the binding precedent of Karakas was at odds with the Supreme Court's decision in Heredi v. Fensom and attempting to distinguish their case.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the case could not be distinguished from Karakas and that the automobile was not merely ancillary to the damage caused.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision that the criminal offences exclusion in subsections 30(4) and (5) of the SABS-1996 did not apply to income replacement benefits payable after the insured's conviction for assault.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, finding that the exclusion applies to benefits that would otherwise be payable both before and after a conviction.

The arbitrator's interpretation would produce absurd consequences and violate public policy by allowing a convicted person to receive benefits after being found guilty.