John Ashley Friendly

This appeal concerns the interpretation of "involved in the incident" under section 268(2) of the Insurance Act, which dictates liability for statutory accident benefits.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court's decision that an arbitrator erred in law by introducing a causation requirement into the test for "involvement" in a priority dispute between an insured snowmobile's insurer (Gore Mutual) and the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

The Court held that temporal, spatial, and participatory factors were sufficient to establish involvement, without requiring a direct causal link to the injuries.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of an exclusion clause (s. 1.8.2) in the standard Ontario Automobile Policy regarding uninsured motorist coverage for passengers in a stolen vehicle.

The motion judge had ruled that the exclusion applied to the plaintiff passenger, Joshua Burnham, even if he did not know the vehicle was stolen, thereby shifting liability to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

The Court of Appeal reversed this decision, holding that the exclusion does not apply to innocent passengers in the insured vehicle, aligning with the policy's legislative history and purpose to expand coverage and reduce reliance on the Fund.

The plaintiff, Shobrook Corporation, was successful in its motion to amend its Statement of Claim and sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $28,933, finding that while the defendants' conduct unnecessarily lengthened and complicated the motion, it did not meet the high threshold for reprehensible conduct required for substantial indemnity.

The court also ordered a further day of discovery and the appointment of a new Case Management Judge due to the procedural difficulties encountered.

The plaintiff, Shobrook Corporation, brought a motion to amend its Statement of Claim to increase the damages claimed from $750,000 to $8,700,000 and to limit its claim to insurance coverage, as well as to obtain leave to bring this motion after the matter had been set down for trial.

The defendants opposed the amendments, arguing they were untenable, caused non-compensable prejudice, and were brought with inordinate delay.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to bring the motion and to amend its Statement of Claim, finding that the proposed amendments did not introduce a new cause of action, did not cause non-compensable prejudice, and that any presumed prejudice due to delay was rebutted.

The court emphasized that the original claim already encompassed the nature of the increased damages.

This endorsement addresses costs following a motion where the defendant Lida Zhang successfully obtained an order staying enforcement of a judgment against him by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

Zhang sought partial indemnity costs from the Fund, arguing he was the successful party.

The Fund contended success was divided and cited its statutory function.

The court found Zhang was successful against the Fund and awarded him $39,096.65 in partial indemnity costs, declining to apply Rule 49 for substantial indemnity due to issues with Zhang's settlement offer.

The Minister of Finance appealed an arbitration award that found the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund, not Echelon General Insurance Company, liable for statutory accident benefits (SABs) to an injured pedestrian.

The arbitrator had concluded that the insured's email constituted a valid request to terminate his automobile insurance policy, thereby absolving Echelon of liability.

The Minister argued the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable, contending the email was not a clear request, the context of Echelon's prior ineffective cancellation was ignored, and the decision frustrated consumer protection policies.

The court dismissed the Minister's appeal, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of "request" under the Statutory Conditions was reasonable and consistent with case law, which imposes no formal requirements on an insured's termination request.

This appeal concerned an arbitrator's decision regarding priority for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The dispute was between State Farm Mutual Insurance Company and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (representing the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund) over whether two claimants, Latchman Sanichar and Asha Basdeo, were 'principally dependent' on State Farm's insured, Prakash Doodram, for financial support.

The court reviewed the arbitrator's decision on a reasonableness standard.

The appeal was granted in part: the arbitrator's finding that Asha was not principally dependent on Prakash was deemed unreasonable and set aside, making State Farm the priority insurer for Asha.

However, the arbitrator's finding that Latchman was not principally dependent on Prakash was affirmed as reasonable, meaning State Farm was not the priority insurer for Latchman.

The appeal on costs was also granted, with no costs awarded due to divided success.

In a negligence appeal concerning injuries suffered after minors stole an unlocked vehicle from a commercial garage, the Court addressed whether the garage owner owed a duty of care to the injured passenger.

The majority held that while theft risk was foreseeable, the record did not establish reasonable foreseeability of personal injury from unsafe operation of the stolen vehicle in the specific circumstances.

Applying Anns/Cooper, the majority found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie duty of care and dismissed the claim against the garage owner.

The dissent would have upheld the existing duty category for foreseeable physical injury and maintained liability findings.

Farmers' Mutual Insurance Company (Lindsay) appealed an arbitration decision that found its commercial umbrella liability policy covered Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) benefits for an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) accident.

The court, reviewing for reasonableness, found the arbitrator erred in interpreting the definition of 'automobile' within the Umbrella policy.

However, the court concluded that the ATV was covered under Farmers' standard Ontario Automobile Policy (OAP) via the 'Newly Acquired Automobiles' provision, due to the Umbrella policy's effect on the OAP's prerequisite that the insurer insure all automobiles owned by the insured.

Consequently, Farmers' appeal was dismissed, and the Minister of Finance's cross-appeal was allowed, affirming Farmers as the priority insurer responsible for SABS benefits.

The Minister of Finance appealed an arbitrator's preliminary award concerning an automobile insurance policy.

Echelon General Insurance Company had attempted to cancel a six-month policy for non-payment, but the cancellation was invalid due to non-compliance with the notice requirements of s. 236 of the Insurance Act.

The arbitrator ruled the policy expired at the end of its term, not extended by s. 236.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that s. 236(5) unambiguously states a contract of insurance remains in force until the statutory notice provisions for renewal or non-renewal are complied with.

The court found that Echelon's policy was not properly cancelled and therefore remained in force at the time of the accident, overriding common law contract principles regarding policy expiry.

The plaintiff, Igal Shapiro, claimed insurance benefits from Economical Mutual Insurance Company (his father's insurer) or compensation from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund after being hit by an unidentified driver.

Economical and the Superintendent of Financial Services brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the claim, arguing that the plaintiff failed to prove he was hit by an "unidentified automobile" as defined by the Insurance Act and the MVAC Act, and did not make reasonable efforts to identify the driver.

The court found that the plaintiff did not meet his burden of proving injury by an "unidentified motorist" and that the evidence presented was insufficient to raise a genuine issue for trial.

The motions for summary judgment were granted, dismissing the plaintiff's action against Economical and implicitly against the Superintendent.

The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund commenced an action against an insurer seeking reimbursement of accident benefits after serving a Notice of Dispute under the inter‑insurer arbitration regime created by Ontario Regulation 283/95 under the Insurance Act.

The insurer moved for summary judgment arguing that once the Fund initiated the statutory arbitration process it could not abandon that process and instead pursue restitution through litigation.

The court held that the Fund had sufficient information to commence arbitration within the one‑year time limit but failed to follow up and allowed the limitation period to expire.

The “proper case” exception permitting a restitution action outside the arbitration regime did not apply where the Fund’s inability to arbitrate arose from its own inaction.

Summary judgment was therefore granted dismissing the action.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing their action for delay under Rule 48.14.

The underlying action arose from a pedestrian–motor vehicle accident and included tort claims against the driver and statutory accident benefits claims involving the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

Applying the contextual test and the four factors from Reid v. Dow Corning Corp., the court examined the explanation for delay, inadvertence in missing the deadline, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

Although the motion was not brought promptly, the court found that the delay was largely attributable to counsel’s inadvertence and unusual circumstances including illness, staff turnover, and an office flood, and that the defendants had not demonstrated actual prejudice.

The registrar’s dismissal order was therefore set aside.