John F. Graham

The insured drove a snowmobile after consuming alcohol to rescue a friend who was lost on a frozen lake.

The insured held a valid driver's licence but was in breach of a probation order prohibiting him from driving with alcohol in his blood.

Following an accident that seriously injured the friend, the insured's automobile insurer denied coverage, arguing he was not 'authorized by law to drive' under statutory condition 4.

The court held that 'authorized by law' refers to the possession of and compliance with a valid driver's licence, not court orders or legislative prohibitions.

The insurer was ordered to provide full coverage.

The appellant insurer appealed a declaration that it had a duty to defend the respondent insureds in an action brought by the purchaser of their home.

The purchaser initially claimed intentional misrepresentation regarding property defects but later amended the claim to include negligent misrepresentation.

The insurer argued the negligence claim was derivative of the intentional tort, that coverage was excluded because the property was previously 'owned' by the insureds, and that the insureds failed to give timely notice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the negligence claim was not derivative, the 'owned' property exclusion was ambiguous, and notice was given promptly once the claim was amended to potentially attract coverage.

Following a motor vehicle accident involving an uninsured driver who struck a pedestrian, the driver and her spouse sought a declaration that the spouse’s automobile insurer was required to indemnify them after the spouse added the vehicle to his existing policy the day after the accident.

The insurer alleged the addition was obtained through intentional misrepresentation, including false statements about ownership and the failure to disclose the prior accident.

The court found the spouse had no insurable interest in the vehicle and that both individuals engaged in a scheme to deceive the insurer by backdating coverage and concealing material facts.

Under s. 233 of the Insurance Act, their right to recover indemnity was forfeited due to fraud and false statements.

The action was dismissed and the uninsured motorist insurer was required to respond to the personal injury claim.

The third party insurer appealed a motions judge's decision finding that an insurance policy was ambiguous and that the respondent was a member of the household for the purposes of coverage.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motions judge's interpretation of the policy and his consideration of the respondent's pattern of usage of the cottage property.

Finding no palpable and overriding error in the mixed question of fact and law, the Court dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiff, an Ontario Provincial Police officer, was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving a police cruiser.

The driver of the other vehicle was underinsured.

The plaintiff claimed under the OPCF 44 endorsement of both her personal automobile insurance policy and the police force's fleet policy.

The issue on appeal was which insurer was required to respond first.

The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff was an 'insured person' under the fleet policy because the cruiser was provided for her 'regular use'.

The Court found that 'regular use' does not require a personal use component.

Therefore, the fleet policy was the first loss insurance.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and commenced an action more than two years later.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred.

The motions judge dismissed the defendants' motion and instead granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff on the limitation issue, finding it was not reasonably discoverable within the first 35 days that the plaintiff had suffered a serious impairment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants' appeal, holding that under Rules 20.04(2) and (4), a motions judge has jurisdiction to grant summary judgment against a moving party, and that the medical evidence supported the conclusion that the limitation defence failed.