Joseph W.L. Griffiths

The defendant insurer brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision refusing summary judgment in an action for statutory accident benefits.

The underlying action had been commenced more than four years after the insurer’s initial denial of benefits, despite a statutory two‑year limitation period under the Insurance Act and the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The motion judge declined summary judgment due to concerns about a subsequent denial form containing an error and a later medical report suggesting fibromyalgia related to the accident.

The court held that the law is well settled that the two‑year limitation runs from the insurer’s refusal and is not subject to discoverability.

Leave to appeal was granted because the decision appeared inconsistent with other Ontario authorities and clarification of the limitation rule was important.

A beneficiary applied for costs following a successful application removing an executor and trustee of an estate.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs and requested that the respondent pay personally due to misconduct in administering the trust and breaching a mediated settlement agreement.

The court found the respondent’s conduct reprehensible, including withholding trust funds without justification, acting under conflicts of interest, and attempting unsuccessful procedural delays.

While the applicant could not recover costs from a previously settled proceeding, the respondent’s breach of the settlement agreement justified a higher scale of costs.

Full indemnity costs were awarded and ordered payable personally by the respondent, together with reimbursement to the trust for legal fees he had paid to his own counsel from trust funds.

An application sought removal of an estate trustee and appointment of a corporate trustee under s. 37 of the Trustee Act.

The applicant alleged the trustee refused to pay trust income to the life beneficiary, acted in conflict of interest as both trustee and capital beneficiary, and breached settlement terms governing joint management of trust investments.

The court reviewed the governing principles for removal of trustees, emphasizing that the primary consideration is the welfare of the beneficiaries and that removal requires evidence that the trust cannot be properly administered if the trustee remains.

Given ongoing hostility, breaches of the settlement agreement, unilateral investment decisions, and interruption of income payments to the life beneficiary, the court found the conflict impaired the trustee’s ability to exercise discretion impartially.

The trustee was removed and a corporate trustee appointed.

The respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits for 104 weeks.

The appellant insurer terminated the benefits, arguing the respondent did not meet the stricter test of suffering a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training or experience.

The trial judge found the respondent met the test because he lacked the financial resources to train for long-haul trucking, which was identified as a suitable alternative.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a job requiring no substantial upgrading or retraining is a suitable alternative, even if the insured lacks formal qualifications at the time of trial.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court judgment regarding an insurance coverage dispute.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower court and the arbitrator that the insurance endorsement in question included a causal element excluding coverage for loss or damage resulting from the ownership, use, or operation of specific machinery.

On the agreed facts, this causation requirement was not met.

The insured was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Michigan and required emergency medical services.

She held both a standard Ontario automobile policy with the respondent and a travel insurance policy with the appellant.

The appellant paid the medical expenses and sought reimbursement from the respondent.

The motion judge found both policies provided primary coverage and applied s. 268(6) of the Insurance Act to make the travel insurance primary.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the clear language of the travel insurance policy made it excess insurance.

Therefore, s. 268(6) did not apply, and the automobile insurer was required to provide primary coverage and reimburse the travel insurer.

Following an appeal with divided success, the court issued a costs endorsement.

No costs were ordered between the appellants and the Crown.

The appellants were ordered to pay costs of $5,000 each to the respondent Diocese of Sault Ste.

Marie and the respondent Jesuit Fathers of Upper Canada.

The appellants, comprising children of residential school attendees and estates of deceased attendees, appealed an order striking their claims against the federal Crown and other defendants.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reinstating the secondary plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the federal Crown, finding it was not plain and obvious that the duty did not extend to them despite not being born at the time of the alleged breaches.

However, the Court upheld the striking of the Family Law Act claims, as the Act does not operate retroactively, and the estate claims, which were statute-barred under the Trustee Act.