Catherine Korte

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision dismissing its motion to dismiss the respondent insurer's application for loss transfer indemnity under s. 275 of the Insurance Act.

The dispute arose after a pedestrian was struck by a vehicle insured by the appellant and claimed Statutory Accident Benefits under a motorcycle policy issued by the respondent to the pedestrian's father.

The Divisional Court upheld the arbitrator's findings that the priority scheme in s. 268 of the Insurance Act ranks insurers, not policies, and that the respondent was entitled to indemnification.

The appeal was dismissed.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to serve and file a notice of appeal from an order dismissing her action for non-compliance with a discovery plan.

The respondents opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for a stay or security for costs.

The Court of Appeal applied the five-factor test for extending time and found that the moving party had no intention to appeal within the time limit, offered no explanation for the delay, and the appeal lacked merit.

Given the moving party's history of non-compliance with court orders and abuse of process, the justice of the case did not favour an extension.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The defendant insurer brought a motion seeking security for costs and related procedural orders in an action arising from a motor vehicle accident benefits dispute.

The plaintiff had previously pursued multiple proceedings following the denial of additional statutory accident benefits by a Financial Services Commission arbitrator and subsequent appeal.

The court found there was reason to believe the ongoing action was approaching the threshold of frivolous or vexatious litigation and that security for costs was justified under Rule 56.01(1)(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay $2,500 as security for costs within 45 days failing which the action would be stayed, established a discovery timetable, and restricted direct communications with the defendant.

Partial indemnity costs of $2,500 were also awarded to the defendant.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the self-represented plaintiff's Statement of Claim under Rule 21.01 or Rule 2.1.

The plaintiff alleged that she reached a settlement agreement for accident benefits with the defendant insurer and three of its employees prior to an arbitration decision that ultimately dismissed her claim.

The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the action against the individual employees as they were acting in the course of their employment and no cause of action was pleaded against them personally.

However, the court declined to dismiss the action against the insurer as frivolous or an abuse of process, finding that the claim for breach of a purported settlement agreement was a distinct cause of action that required evidence to resolve.

The plaintiffs were injured in motor vehicle accidents and sought statutory accident benefits from their insurers.

After disputes arose, the plaintiffs applied to the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) for mediation.

When 60 days passed without a mediator being appointed, the plaintiffs commenced civil actions.

The insurers moved to strike or stay the actions, arguing that under s. 281(2) of the Insurance Act, mediation must actually be attempted and fail before an action can be brought.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurers' appeals, holding that the 60-day time limit in the legislation is mandatory, and mediation is deemed to have failed if not concluded within that period, freeing the insured to commence a court action.

The court determined costs arising from four similar insurance motions brought by separate defendants in related actions.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $36,500.

The court found that a deduction was required because some counsel time related to unargued Charter applications rather than the motions themselves.

Applying the principles from Hunt v. TD Securities Inc., the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and instead reduced the requested amount by $8,000.

The plaintiffs were awarded $28,500 plus HST, payable equally among the defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order that an accident benefits action be tried together with a related tort action arising from the same motor vehicle accident.

The court considered whether the proceedings shared common questions of law or fact and whether trying them together would promote efficiency and avoid inconsistent findings.

Applying factors relating to expediency, convenience, potential prejudice, and overlap of witnesses and expert evidence, the court found that the actions arose from the same accident and involved overlapping issues regarding injuries and damages.

The court concluded that hearing the matters together would reduce duplication of witnesses and trial time without causing meaningful prejudice.

The motion was granted and the actions were ordered to be tried together.

The plaintiffs, injured in motor vehicle accidents, applied for mediation through the Financial Services Commission of Ontario regarding entitlement to statutory accident benefits.

Mediation was not scheduled within 60 days of filing their applications, and the regulator refused to issue reports declaring mediation had failed, asserting the 60‑day period began only once a mediator was appointed.

The plaintiffs commenced court actions and the insurers moved to strike the claims for lack of jurisdiction.

The court held that Rule 19 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code imposes a mandatory requirement that mediation be concluded within 60 days of filing the mediation application.

Because that period had expired, mediation was deemed to have failed and the plaintiffs were not required to obtain a failed mediation report or pursue internal appeals or judicial review before commencing their actions.