Lauren Natalie Bloom

The defendants in a personal injury action brought a motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages for a jury trial, relying on the recently amended Rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that it would cause undue delay and increase costs.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while bifurcation can promote timely justice, the defendants' request was made too late in the litigation process, close to the scheduled trial date.

The court determined that granting the motion would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiffs by effectively adjourning the damages hearing for an estimated two years, outweighing any potential cost savings or efficiencies.

This decision addresses the quantum of costs payable to the plaintiffs following the settlement of a motor vehicle accident action.

The court considered the principles of fair and reasonable costs under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing proportionality and the defendants' failure to engage in mandatory mediation under the Insurance Act.

Despite the plaintiffs abandoning claims for substantial or augmented costs, the court found the partial indemnity costs sought by the plaintiffs to be fair, reasonable, and proportionate, considering the complexity and length of the litigation, and the defendants' conduct in prolonging the process.

The parties brought a motion under Rule 22.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for determination of a question of law by special case concerning uninsured automobile coverage.

The issue was whether a vehicle owned and driven by a spouse of the named insured, but uninsured at the time of the accident, qualified as an “uninsured automobile” under the standard Ontario automobile policy (O.P.F. 1) and s. 265 of the Insurance Act.

The court considered competing interpretations of the term “the insured” in the statutory exclusion and the definition of “insured” in s. 224 of the Insurance Act.

Applying principles of broad interpretation of coverage and narrow construction of exclusions, and relying on appellate jurisprudence, the court held that the term refers to the claimant rather than the named insured.

Accordingly, the vehicle was an uninsured automobile and coverage under the policy was available.