John J. Aikins

The plaintiff, Jeffrey Bradfield, sought a declaration of entitlement to recover judgment against the defendant insurer, Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Company (RSA), under section 258 of the Insurance Act.

The action arose from a motor vehicle collision where the insured, Devecseri, was in breach of his M2 driver's license condition (zero blood alcohol).

Bradfield argued that RSA had waived its right to rely on the policy violation or was estopped from doing so due to its conduct in defending the Estate for three years without a reservation of rights.

The court found that RSA's failure to obtain the Coroner's report despite being directed to, and its subsequent defense of the claim for three years, amounted to a waiver by conduct.

Prejudice to the insured was presumed due to the delay.

The court declared Bradfield entitled to recover $800,000 from RSA.

The third party, York Regional Police Services Board (YRPS), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the third party claim against it arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant Heft opposed the motion.

Heft also raised a preliminary issue that the case management judge should not hear the summary judgment motion.

The court held that a case management judge who has not conducted a pre-trial or settlement conference is not precluded from hearing a summary judgment motion.

On the substantive issue, the court found that summary judgment was not appropriate due to an incomplete evidentiary record, conflicting expert evidence regarding the standard of care for 911 call-takers, and the risk of inconsistent findings in a complex multi-party action.

The motion was dismissed.

This motion concerned whether a lawyer could represent both a driver and a passenger in a motor vehicle accident claim when the defendants counterclaimed against the driver for contribution to the passenger's damages.

The applicant, Louis Gordon Sabean (as defendant to the counterclaim, through his insurer's counsel), sought to remove Jeffrey Strype as counsel for Sian Patricia Sabean (the passenger).

The court found no disqualifying conflict of interest, noting the common interest of the plaintiffs in establishing the defendants' liability, the waiver of conflict by the clients, and the speculative nature of the alleged risks of impaired representation or confidential information disclosure.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant insurer appealed a loss transfer arbitration decision under s. 275 of the Insurance Act arising from a motor vehicle collision between vehicles insured by the parties.

The arbitrator found the applicant insurer’s insured 100% at fault under the Fault Determination Rules and ordered the loss transferred.

On judicial appeal, the court applied the reasonableness standard of review applicable to loss transfer arbitrations and emphasized the deference owed to specialized arbitrators interpreting their home statute and regulatory scheme.

The court held that the arbitrator reasonably applied Rule 14.2 and, alternatively, correctly determined fault under ordinary legal principles.

The arbitration decision fell within the range of acceptable outcomes and was upheld.