Helen Donata Kohner Friedman

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion for leave to amend her statement of claim seeking Long-Term Disability (LTD) benefits and damages.

The motion judge denied leave, finding the proposed amendments sought to withdraw an admission regarding the timely filing of an LTD benefits application and to add a statute-barred request for relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in concluding the amendments withdrew a factual admission, clarifying that the appellant's factual admission remained, and the amendments merely provided particulars and sought an alternative legal conclusion (relief from forfeiture) arising from the same facts.

The Court also held that the request for relief from forfeiture was not a new, statute-barred claim.

The appeal was allowed, and leave to amend was granted.

The defendants brought a preliminary motion to strike affidavits filed by the plaintiffs in support of a larger "Refusals motion." The court granted the defendants' motion, striking the affidavits of Chris Pierre and Phyllis Bergmans, and specific portions of James Wallbridge's affidavit.

The court reserved on the issue of costs until after the Refusals motion had been heard and decided.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion for directions seeking to dismiss a summary judgment motion brought by six individual insurance adjusters, arguing that the issues of personal liability should be determined at trial due to complexity and potential for inconsistent findings.

The adjusters sought to dismiss claims against them entirely, arguing no genuine issue for trial regarding their independent personal liability.

The court, applying the principles from Hyrniak, determined that the summary judgment motion was an appropriate and proportionate method to address the adjusters' personal liability, finding the issues severable and not risking duplicative or inconsistent findings.

The Plaintiffs' motion for directions was dismissed, and the adjusters' summary judgment motion was ordered to proceed.

Appeal from a private arbitration award concerning a priority dispute between insurers under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a pedestrian motor vehicle accident involving a minor.

The arbitrator found the injured claimant was not principally dependent for care on the insureds with whom he resided and therefore not a dependent within the meaning of s. 2(6) of the Schedule.

The appellant insurer argued the arbitrator erred in assessing dependency for care and applied the wrong analytical framework.

The court held that the issue involved mixed fact and law attracting a reasonableness standard of review and that the arbitrator’s findings were reasonable.

The claimant’s circumstances showed he largely managed his own needs and finances while paying room and board.

The arbitration award was upheld.