Ian W. Furlong

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal by non-settling defendants challenging the approval of a Pierringer agreement in a multi-party motor vehicle accident case.

The court held that the agreement did not cause substantive prejudice to the non-settling defendants, as the Negligence Act places the risk of an insolvent or impecunious tortfeasor on the remaining tortfeasors, not the victim.

The court also declined to grant procedural orders in advance, leaving such matters to the trial judge.

Two Ontario residents injured in separate accidents outside Ontario involving an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and a dirt bike sought statutory accident benefits (SABs) under their Ontario automobile insurance policies.

Both insurers denied coverage, arguing that the definition of "automobile" under Ontario law should be determined by the law of the jurisdiction where the accidents occurred (lex loci delicti).

The Court of Appeal held that Ontario law applies to the interpretation of Ontario contracts and statutes, and that the definition of "automobile" in the Insurance Act and Off-Road Vehicles Act applies uniformly regardless of where the accident occurs.

Both vehicles qualified as automobiles under the extended definition because they would have required insurance if operated in Ontario under the Off-Road Vehicles Act.

The court allowed the appeal of the insured and dismissed the appeal of the insurer.

The plaintiff successfully defended a summary judgment motion brought by the City of Barrie, which sought to dismiss the claim due to late notice under the Municipal Act.

In this costs endorsement, the court considered the plaintiff's request for partial indemnity costs and the City's submission to reserve costs to the trial judge.

Citing the principle that costs may be reserved when issues raised on the motion remain live, the court found it just to reserve the costs of the motion to the trial judge, as the issue of prejudice to the City from late notice still needed to be determined at trial.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claim against herself for statutory vicarious liability as the owner of a vehicle involved in an accident.

The appellant was a passenger in her own vehicle driven by her daughter when the accident occurred in a private parking lot.

The motion judge dismissed the claim on the ground that the accident did not occur on a "highway" as defined in the Highway Traffic Act and therefore section 192(2) of the Act did not apply.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal suggesting the accident occurred at a GO Station parking lot used by the general public.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence and upheld the summary judgment dismissal.

The plaintiffs moved to amend their statement of claim in a motor vehicle accident action.

While most proposed amendments were unopposed, the City of Ottawa objected to specific allegations of negligence against it, arguing they were prolix, repetitive, pleaded evidence, and constituted inappropriate boilerplate, especially given the advanced stage of litigation.

The court granted leave to amend in principle but required the plaintiffs to revise the contested paragraph to remove repetitive subparagraphs, specific pleading of evidence (such as the exact number of previous accidents), and inconsistent allegations unless clearly pleaded in the alternative.

The Master emphasized the need for certainty, precision, and sufficient particulars in pleadings.

Costs were awarded to the City of Ottawa.