Heather M. Gastle

The Minister of National Revenue brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for unpaid federal and integrated student loans.

The defendant did not respond to the motion.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, determining that the defendant had entered into loan agreements and failed to repay them.

The action was deemed to be within the applicable limitation period due to the defendant's prior acknowledgement of the debt.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, awarding the outstanding principal amounts, pre-judgment interest, and partial indemnity costs, while clarifying the calculation of post-judgment interest.

This is an appeal from the dismissal of a summary judgment motion.

The appellant, an insurer, sought to dismiss a long-term disability claim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion judge found the claim was not discovered until the insurer unequivocally denied it.

The Court of Appeal reversed this, holding that a clear and unequivocal denial is not required to trigger the limitation period.

The court found the claim was statute-barred as the plaintiff ought to have known of the loss and the appropriateness of litigation much earlier, specifically when benefits were due, or when the insurer closed the file, or when lawyers received notice of the closure.

The appeal was allowed, and the action dismissed.

The appellant abandoned its appeal, and the respondent sought substantial indemnity costs.

The appellant challenged the court's jurisdiction to award costs for an abandoned appeal and proposed a lower partial indemnity amount.

The Court of Appeal affirmed its jurisdiction under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, finding that Rule 61.14 did not displace this discretion.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs, finding substantial indemnity was not justified.

The plaintiff moved to strike a Rule 39.03 summons to witness issued by the defendant Western Life Assurance Company, seeking to examine the plaintiff's legal assistant, who is also his sister.

The defendant sought to examine the legal assistant regarding the plaintiff's knowledge of his disability claim obligations and the limitation period.

The court found that communications with the legal assistant were protected by solicitor-client privilege and that the defendant failed to demonstrate the "high materiality and necessity" required to compel her testimony, nor was there a clear waiver of privilege.

The motion to strike the summons was granted.

The plaintiff, Voula Kardaras, sought long-term disability benefits from Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada due to major depressive disorder.

Sun Life discontinued benefits after Kardaras began a gradual return to work, asserting she was capable of full-time employment.

The court found Kardaras was entitled to "own occupation" benefits for approximately one year after discontinuation, as she was incapable of performing the essential duties of her occupation more than three days per week.

However, she was not entitled to "any occupation" benefits as her part-time work was reasonably commensurate in status and reward.

The court also awarded Kardaras $10,000 in mental distress damages due to Sun Life's breach of the duty of good faith in its handling of her claim.