Jonathan J. Barr

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing a motor vehicle personal injury action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 after the statement of claim was issued 63 days after the two‑year anniversary of the accident.

The plaintiff argued that the claim was not discovered until later medical reports established that her injuries potentially met the serious impairment threshold under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court held that the discoverability analysis requires knowledge that there is sufficient evidence to establish the statutory threshold, not merely a belief that a claim exists.

Given conflicting evidence about when sufficient medical evidence became available to support the threshold requirement, a genuine issue for trial existed regarding when the limitation period began to run.

The defendants’ summary judgment motion was dismissed and the plaintiff’s cross‑motion to amend the statement of claim to plead discoverability was granted.

Following a successful motion removing counsel for the insurer due to a conflict of interest arising from representation in both accident benefits and tort proceedings, the court addressed costs.

The insurer argued that delay by the moving party in raising the conflict should disentitle it to costs because significant work had already been completed by counsel who would need to be replaced.

The court rejected this argument, finding the conflict arose from the insurer’s failure to maintain separation between accident benefits and tort files.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles from appellate jurisprudence on reasonableness of costs, the court held that the time and rates claimed were reasonable.

The moving party was awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Addendum to a prior decision correcting the wording of an order concerning the removal of counsel for a statutory third party insurer.

The original judgment was amended to clarify that the motion sought removal of the law firm representing the statutory third party, rather than the individual defendant driver.

The court ordered that the law firm be removed as solicitors of record for the statutory third party insurer.

The litigation guardian was permitted to make written submissions on costs, with the insurer given time to respond.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking removal of a law firm acting for an insurer as statutory third party in a tort action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer also provided accident benefits coverage to the plaintiff and retained the same firm to act in both the accident benefits claim and the defence of the tort action.

The firm used documents and information obtained from the plaintiff in the accident benefits claim to defend the tort action against the insured driver.

The court held that this dual representation created a clear conflict of interest, particularly where no effective information barrier existed between the two matters.

The firm’s conduct contravened principles governing conflicts of interest and the protection of confidential information between insurer and insured relationships.

The firm was removed as solicitors of record for the insurer in the tort action.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict regarding an insurance claim for fire damage.

The jury had heard expert evidence from the respondent's electrical engineer that the building's permanent wiring was not the cause of the fire, and that the fire was likely caused by shoddy electrical wiring used for a marijuana grow operation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding there was evidence upon which the jury could reasonably reach its verdict.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including medical, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

At the hearing, the applicant's representative withdrew as she was unable to locate or receive instructions from the applicant.

The applicant did not appear at the hearing.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof and adduced no evidence, the arbitrator dismissed the application.

The applicant was ordered to pay $400 in costs to the insurer.