Bert Raphael

The appellants appealed an order permitting the respondents to amend their statement of claim to increase the prayer for relief, but denying the appellants the right to deliver a jury notice.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that the discretionary decision concerning terms imposed on the amendment of pleadings constitutes an interlocutory order, over which the court has no jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal determined that the order appealed from was interlocutory, not final.

As a result, the court lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was quashed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident while a passenger in an uninsured vehicle.

He sought indemnity from the respondent insurer under a policy issued to a man with whom he lived in a de facto parent-child relationship.

The motions judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding the appellant was neither a 'person insured under the contract' under s. 265 of the Insurance Act nor a 'relative' under the OPCF 44 endorsement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the definition of 'insured' in s. 224(1) applies to s. 265, and that 'relative' in the endorsement should be interpreted liberally to include a de facto parent-child relationship, provided dependency is proven at trial.