Jeffrey R. Le Roy

Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Dave Watson in three negligence actions arising from a boating accident.

Watson, the insured, conceded no duty to indemnify but argued Wawanesa had a duty to defend and had waived its right to refuse defence.

The court found that Wawanesa had a duty to defend based on the "pleadings rule" and the doctrine of waiver, but no duty to indemnify.

Wawanesa was ordered to resume providing a defence.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff claimed damages for physical and mental injuries suffered as a bystander who witnessed a fatal motor vehicle collision allegedly caused by the defendant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it was not plain and obvious that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, as Canadian courts have recognized a potential duty of care to bystanders who suffer nervous shock from witnessing horrific accidents.

The appellant, Linda-Sue Pearce, appealed from a motion judge's refusal to allow her to withdraw an admission made during a summary judgment motion regarding ownership of a Ford truck.

The truck was driven by her son, Trevor Middleton, when it was involved in a collision with a Honda Civic.

Middleton was convicted of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and aggravated assault.

The respondent Liu sued his own insurer, The Personal Insurance Company, for relief against uninsured or underinsured motorists.

During the motion, all parties agreed that if Pearce was found to be the owner, Wawanesa would respond and the action against Personal could be dismissed.

After the motion judge found Pearce was the owner and dismissed the action against Personal, Pearce sought to withdraw her admission, arguing that section 192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act made her liable only for negligence, not intentional torts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the interests of justice did not favour allowing withdrawal of the admission.