James Tomlinson

The Royal Bank of Canada sought default judgment for possession of a mortgaged property after the defendants, the Estate of Morrison Augustin and Bridget Daniel, failed to defend the proceeding.

The court found the plaintiff had established liability based on deemed admissions and affidavit evidence, and granted an order for possession of the property, as well as costs to be assessed.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the order under appeal was interlocutory and its character was unaffected by the passage of time.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction, with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a default judgment awarding lump sum support of $30,748.00, arguing lack of notice and that the amount was excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant should have moved to set aside the default judgment in the Superior Court rather than appealing directly.

The court also found the motion judge was entitled to make the support order based on the affidavit evidence before her.

The applicant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents.

He received accident benefits from Allstate for the first accident and applied for benefits from Zurich for the second accident.

Zurich failed to respond to the arbitration application or pay the assessment fee, and the hearing proceeded without them.

Zurich later moved to re-open the hearing, citing inadvertence.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion to re-open, finding Zurich's conduct amounted to negligence and re-opening would prejudice the applicant.

The arbitrator awarded the applicant weekly income benefits of $185.60 and medical/rehabilitation benefits of $1,649.80 based on his uncontested evidence.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as there was insufficient evidence to find Zurich acted unreasonably beyond its failure to participate.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received caregiver benefits for her elderly mother, who resided with her at the time of the accident.

The mother subsequently suffered a stroke and was moved to a nursing home, ceasing to reside with the Applicant.

The Insurer terminated the caregiver benefits on the basis that the mother no longer resided with the Applicant.

The Arbitrator held that under the plain meaning of sections 13(4) and 13(6) of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule, the requirement to reside together applies only at the time of the accident, and none of the termination conditions in section 13(6) applied.

The Insurer was ordered to continue paying the caregiver benefits.