Altor Shields

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his application for the assessment of legal accounts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the accounts of one respondent had already been assessed a decade ago, and there was no basis for ordering a reassessment.

Furthermore, the appellant provided no evidence to warrant any order against the other respondent.

The appellant sued the respondent accountant and his firms for negligent misrepresentation, alleging she lost approximately $825,000 invested in a company based on his advice.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no accountant-client relationship existed when the initial investment was structured, and that the appellant did not rely on the accountant's representations when making further investments despite knowing the company was in financial difficulty.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the action but allowed the appeal on costs on consent, reducing the trial costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her claim against the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that because the appellant was not involved in the accident and did not have first party insurance, she was not entitled to statutory benefits and had no recourse against the Fund under s. 6 of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and settled her claim for statutory accident benefits with her insurer for a lump sum.

She later sued for further benefits, and the insurer relied on the signed release.

The appellant argued the release was invalid because the insurer's written notice did not comply with s. 9.1(2) of Regulation 664 under the Insurance Act.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the notice failed to provide an estimate of the commuted value of the benefits and failed to state the maximum benefits available.

The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment dismissing the action was set aside.

The plaintiff sued the defendant insurer for statutory accident benefits.

The plaintiff's counsel offered to settle the claim, which the defendant accepted.

The plaintiff subsequently rescinded the settlement, arguing the defendant failed to comply with the disclosure requirements of s. 9.1 of Regulation 664.

The defendant successfully brought a motion for judgment on the settlement.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the judgment, holding that the insurer's duty to comply with s. 9.1 does not end once the insured retains a solicitor and commences litigation.