Julianne Brimfield

The appellant, an out-of-province insurer, appealed an arbitrator's decision finding that the priority provisions in s. 268 of the Insurance Act applied to it for a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Ontario.

The appellant argued that applying the Ontario legislation would have an extra-jurisdictional effect.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, applying the reasonableness standard of review.

The court held that because the accident occurred in Ontario and the appellant had signed a Power of Attorney and Undertaking (PAU), it was bound by the priority provisions of the Insurance Act.

The appellant, seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident, sued her insurer for bad faith in handling her statutory accident benefits (SABs) claim, seeking punitive and exemplary damages.

The insurer had failed for approximately three years to advise the appellant or her parents that her injuries qualified as a catastrophic impairment or to inform them of available benefits.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim, finding that the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) had exclusive jurisdiction under section 280 of the Insurance Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, holding that the dispute resolution provisions of the Insurance Act apply broadly to disputes concerning SABs entitlement and administration, regardless of whether the claim is characterized as one for bad faith.

Northbridge General Insurance Corporation appealed an arbitrator's decision that designated it as the priority insurer for accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

Northbridge contended that Co-Operators General Insurance Company failed to provide proper notice under section 3(1) of Ontario Regulation 283/95, thereby precluding Co-Operators from asserting Northbridge's priority.

The Superior Court of Justice applied a reasonableness standard of review to the arbitrator's decision, consistent with The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company v. Unifund Assurance Company.

The court upheld the arbitrator's finding that Co-Operators' initial failure to notify Northbridge directly under section 3(1) was not fatal, as Intact Insurance Company subsequently provided notice to Northbridge under section 10(1) of the Regulation.

The court emphasized the practical realities of priority investigations and the public policy of ensuring timely benefit payments.

The appeal was dismissed, and Northbridge was ordered to pay costs to both respondents.

The appellant, Travelers Insurance Company, appealed an arbitrator's decision that it was the priority insurer for statutory accident benefits following an accident in Nunavut.

The arbitrator found Travelers liable because it was an Ontario insurer, had filed a Power of Attorney and Undertaking (PAU) in Ontario, and was the insurer of the car involved.

Travelers argued the arbitrator erred by applying Ontario law to a Nunavut policy without first determining if the policy provided Ontario benefits coverage.

The court upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that Travelers, as an Ontario-licensed insurer and PAU signatory, was bound by Ontario's priority laws, precluding it from denying coverage based on the accident's location.

The plaintiff sued her insurer for bad faith, negligence, and fraud in the administration of her statutory accident benefits claim following a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant insurer brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the statement of claim, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) had exclusive jurisdiction under section 280 of the Insurance Act.

The court agreed, finding that the essential character of the dispute concerned the denial of accident benefits, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the LAT regardless of how the claim is legally characterized.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

Two consolidated appeals concerning the standard of review applicable to insurance arbitral decisions resolving priority disputes under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The first appeal involved a claimant listed as an excluded driver on his parents' policy who was injured as a passenger in another vehicle.

The second involved a claimant similarly listed as an excluded driver who was injured while driving an uninsured motorcycle.

The central issue was whether excluded drivers could qualify as "insured persons" under the SABS definition and thus trigger priority coverage under their parents' policies.

The Court of Appeal held that the appropriate standard of review for such arbitral decisions is reasonableness, not correctness, and that arbitrators' interpretations of the SABS and insurance policies within their specialized expertise warrant deference.