Andrew Baerg

Following the successful summary dismissal of six actions for accident benefits as statute-barred, the defendant insurer sought costs.

The plaintiffs argued against costs, citing the novelty of the issues and the defendant's means.

The court rejected these arguments, noting the plaintiffs took a calculated risk and made meritless bad faith claims.

The court found the defendant's claimed costs, which were lower than partial indemnity, to be fair and reasonable, awarding a total of $113,500 across the six actions.

Six plaintiffs brought actions against their insurer for non-earner benefits seven to eight years after the benefits were denied.

The insurer brought motions for summary judgment, arguing the actions were statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiffs argued the limitation period did not begin to run because the insurer failed to provide a written explanation of benefits as required by section 32(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The court held that the insurer's denial of benefits was clear and unequivocal, which was sufficient to trigger the limitation period.

The court also found no basis for relief from forfeiture regarding the plaintiffs' failure to submit disability certificates, and dismissed the claims for bad faith.

The motions for summary judgment were granted and the actions were dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding damages for destroying trees and altering a watercourse on the respondents' adjacent property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed arguments regarding the sufficiency of the trial judge's reasons and the effect of a release signed by the respondents.

However, the Court agreed that the trial judge erred in calculating the damages.

The appeal was allowed in part to reduce the total damages awarded to $59,930 plus applicable taxes.