Jason Frost

The defendant Unifund brought a motion to strike the statement of defence of the third party for failing to attend an examination for discovery despite multiple notices and a prior court order.

Counsel for the third party argued they had been unable to contact their client.

The court criticized the delay and lack of effort to locate the third party, ordering counsel to retain an investigator and produce the third party for discovery by August 30, 2022, failing which counsel must move to be removed from the record and Unifund may renew its motion to strike.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to Unifund.

Aviva appealed an arbitrator's decision in a priority dispute which found that Aviva was the priority insurer for accident benefits because it failed to prove the claimant was the 'spouse' of a driver insured by Security National.

Aviva argued the claimant and the driver were married in a foreign religious ceremony.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator's decision was reasonable.

The court found that Aviva bore the burden of proof and failed to provide sufficient evidence of the date, place, or legal validity of the foreign marriage under the lex loci celebrationis.

The plaintiff brought an action against her accident benefits insurer under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and sought to avoid attending an oral examination for discovery due to alleged psychological harm.

The court held that the evidentiary record did not provide persuasive and compelling medical evidence that attendance for discovery, with appropriate accommodations, would cause significant psychological damage.

The court ordered that the plaintiff attend for examination for discovery and held that the defendant insurer was entitled to examine first under the Rules of Civil Procedure because it served the first affidavit of documents and notice of examination.

The court also ruled that an application for mediation under the Insurance Act does not automatically give rise to litigation privilege and does not, by itself, establish that litigation was reasonably contemplated.