5 total
Arbitration Motion dismissed
This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a jury trial where The Co-operators General Insurance Company was wholly successful in two consolidated claims against Bagwandat (Ron) Doobay.
The jury found Mr. Doobay not catastrophically impaired, not entitled to income replacement benefits, and awarded Co-operators $60,000 for repayment of benefits and punitive damages.
The court awarded Co-operators substantial indemnity costs from the date of their offer to settle and partial indemnity costs prior to that, totaling $135,400.00.
The court rejected Mr. Doobay's argument of impecuniosity, noting his prior assets and the existence of an adverse costs insurance policy.
It also ruled that costs previously awarded in arbitration could not be claimed in these court proceedings.
Motion to enforce settlement dismissed as the signed release explicitly included a two-day cooling-off period.
The plaintiff insurer brought a motion to enforce a settlement reached during a Financial Services Commission of Ontario arbitration regarding statutory accident benefits.
The defendant insured had rescinded the settlement within two days, relying on the cooling-off period set out in section 9.1 of Ontario Regulation 664 and explicitly included in the settlement release drafted by the plaintiff.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that because the cooling-off clause was attached to and formed part of the signed settlement documentation, the defendant was entitled to rely on it to rescind the agreement.
Appeal dismissed as the case could not be distinguished from binding precedent regarding motor vehicle damages.
The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision, arguing that the binding precedent of Karakas was at odds with the Supreme Court's decision in Heredi v. Fensom and attempting to distinguish their case.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the case could not be distinguished from Karakas and that the automobile was not merely ancillary to the damage caused.
Appeal dismissed; action for fire damage to parked vehicle statute-barred under Highway Traffic Act.
The appellants' parked motor vehicle was destroyed by a fire allegedly caused by a transmission fluid leak.
The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action as statute-barred by the two-year limitation period in s. 206(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, relying on the binding precedent of Karakas v. General Motors of Canada Ltd. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while there was arguable merit to the appellants' claim that Karakas was at odds with Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, the court was not asked to overrule Karakas and the present case could not be distinguished from it.
Action dismissal set aside; appellant given final opportunity to complete defence medical examinations.
The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action for failing to complete defence medical examinations.
The Court of Appeal found that while the appellant had been dilatory and uncooperative, dismissing the action is a measure of last resort.
The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the dismissal, ordering the appellant to pay $1,287.50 for a missed appointment, and requiring him to complete the examinations on the first available date, failing which the action would be dismissed.
