4 total
Insurer-appointed defence counsel had authority to settle within policy limits despite the insured's objections.
The defendant brought a motion to set aside a consent judgment settling a claim by the plaintiff and his parents.
The defendant argued that the settlement was reached by his insurer's appointed defence counsel without his personal lawyer's involvement, exposing him to liability exceeding his insurance policy limits through surviving crossclaims.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defence counsel had authority under the Ontario Automobile Policy to settle the claim, the settlement was within the scope of that authority, and the defendant failed to meet the legal test to set aside the consent judgment.
The court held that it was not in the interests of justice to set aside the judgment.
Appeal allowed and dismissal set aside where appellant missed trial due to hospitalization for mental disorder.
The appellant's action was dismissed after she missed her trial date.
She appealed, arguing that she was in the hospital suffering from a severe mental disorder at the time.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by not considering her uncontradicted evidence that she had called the court from the hospital.
Fresh evidence confirming her hospitalization was admitted, the dismissal was set aside, and costs of the appeal were awarded to the appellant.
Insurer's motion to compel applicant's attendance at multidisciplinary medical examinations partially granted.
The insurer brought a motion on a preliminary issue to compel the applicant to attend multidisciplinary medical examinations by a psychiatrist, psychologist, and physiatrist.
The applicant opposed the motion, arguing the examinations were not reasonably required and were sought merely to bolster the insurer's case for arbitration.
The arbitrator found that the insurer had not examined the applicant in over two years and had only recently received new medical reports indicating the applicant was unlikely to return to work due to physical and psychological difficulties.
The arbitrator ordered the applicant to attend the examinations by the psychologist and physiatrist, finding them reasonably required to evaluate her condition.
However, the arbitrator found the insurer failed to justify the need for an additional examination by a psychiatrist.
Limitation period did not commence because insurer failed to provide clear reasons for refusing benefits.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits for 156 weeks.
The insurer stopped payments and sent a letter regarding an alleged overpayment, but did not explicitly state reasons for refusing further benefits.
The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the application for arbitration was time-barred under the two-year limitation period.
The arbitrator found that the insurer's letter did not constitute proper written notice of refusal because it lacked clear reasons for the refusal.
Therefore, the limitation period had not commenced, and the applicant was not precluded from proceeding to arbitration.
