James D. Virtue

This is a costs endorsement for three inter-related appeals (C66633, C64430, and C64479).

The parties resolved costs for appeal C64479.

For appeals C64430 and C66633, the Court found that success was mixed, and therefore, there would be no order as to costs for those appeals.

This is an appeal from a jury trial in a personal injury case arising from a single-vehicle crash.

The plaintiffs (Tuffnail family) were injured, and liability was apportioned among the driver (Meekes), the host (Bolton), the bartender (Coulthard), and the plaintiff (Tuffnail).

Multiple parties appealed the post-verdict rulings.

The Court of Appeal found that Coulthard was "jointly liable" with Meekes for the purposes of OPCF 44R, allowing State Farm to deduct Coulthard's insurance limits, thereby reducing State Farm's payout to the Tuffnails.

The court clarified that State Farm must share subrogation recoveries with the Tuffnails on a pro rata basis until the Tuffnails receive full indemnification under the judgment, correcting the trial judge's order that limited it to the OPCF 44R endorsement.

The court upheld the trial judge's decision on Coulthard's several liability to Bolton, rejecting the argument for reapportionment of fault without Meekes.

The court found the trial judge erred in awarding prejudgment interest higher than the bank rate, reducing it to 1.3% as market rates did not justify a higher rate and the "expectation" factor was inappropriate.

Finally, the court upheld the denial of Coulthard's request to amend pleadings to add a limitation defence post-verdict due to non-compensable prejudice.

Following a jury verdict in favour of the plaintiffs in a personal injury action, the parties sought rulings on two issues.

First, the court held that under s. 278(2) of the Insurance Act, the insurer must share any subrogated recovery with the plaintiffs on a pro rata basis until the plaintiffs are fully indemnified under their OPCF 44R endorsement.

Second, the court held that a third party who defended the main action is not jointly and severally liable to the plaintiffs under s. 1 of the Negligence Act, but rather is severally liable to the defendant who commenced the third party claim.

The appellant province sought to block production of anonymized health care databases in aggregate tobacco cost-recovery litigation under provincial legislation.

The Court held that the statutory non-compellability provision turns on the nature of the records, not on relevance to the claim, and that aggregated databases remained records or documents of particular individual insured persons or documents relating to provision of health care benefits.

The Court further rejected interpreting "particular individual insured persons" as limited to identifiable persons, finding that approach inconsistent with the statute's text and scheme.

Trial-fairness concerns did not justify departing from the statutory language, especially given existing mechanisms for expert-reliance disclosure and statistically meaningful sample discovery.

The appeal was allowed and the production order was set aside.

Following a jury verdict awarding the plaintiffs $3.565 million for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident caused by an impaired driver, the court determined several post-trial legal issues.

The court denied the third-party bartender's request to amend his pleadings to add a limitation defence due to prejudice.

The court found the bartender was an independent contractor or volunteer, meaning the host was not vicariously liable for his negligence, but the host could seek contribution and indemnity under the Negligence Act.

The court also ruled that the plaintiffs could access their OPCF 44R underinsured motorist coverage without having sued the bartender, as his insurance was not 'available' to them within the meaning of the endorsement.

Finally, the court ordered the assignment of future statutory accident benefits to prevent double recovery.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict finding him negligent in a motor vehicle collision.

The collision occurred when a vehicle travelling eastbound was struck from behind, causing it to spin, flip, and cross into the westbound lane where the appellant's vehicle collided with it.

The respondents had settled their claim against the driver of the first vehicle and had settled damages with the appellant, leaving only the issue of negligence for the jury.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: that the jury held him to a standard of perfection, that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the "range of vision" standard, and that the trial judge failed to adequately address improper closing submissions by respondents' counsel that appealed to sympathy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the jury verdict.

The defendants moved for a stay of an action concerning approximately $35 million in reserve funds retained from Casino Rama revenues.

The plaintiff alleged that maintaining the reserves breached limits imposed under a later revenue-sharing agreement, while the defendants argued the dispute arose under an earlier agreement that required arbitration.

The court considered the competence-competence principle and jurisprudence directing courts to defer to arbitration where it is arguable that a dispute falls within an arbitration clause.

Because the dispute arguably arose under the earlier contract incorporating arbitration provisions, the court held that the matter should proceed to arbitration.

The action was therefore stayed pending determination by an arbitrator of whether the dispute falls within the arbitration agreement.

The moving parties sought a stay of an arbitration proceeding pending appeals from arbitration panel decisions concerning jurisdiction and party participation.

The dispute arose from an agreement granting the respondent First Nations partnership a right to have a nominee appointed to the board of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation.

The moving parties argued the arbitration panel lacked jurisdiction due to the Crown prerogative over appointments and that the exclusion of the corporation from the arbitration violated natural justice.

Applying the tripartite test for a stay from RJR‑MacDonald, the court found serious issues on appeal regarding jurisdiction, irreparable harm to the public interest if arbitration proceeded prematurely, and that the balance of convenience favoured the moving parties.

The court therefore stayed the arbitration pending determination of the appeals.