David Edwards

The defendants brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement of $50,000 all-inclusive reached with the plaintiff's former counsel.

The plaintiff argued the settlement was based on a mistake due to a faulty translation by a paralegal during a phone call with his former counsel.

The court found that a clear and unequivocal settlement was reached and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or injustice that would justify refusing to enforce it.

The motion was granted and the settlement was enforced.

The defendant insurer, Unifund, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against it.

The central issue was whether the plaintiff daughter resided with her mother at the time of a motor vehicle accident, which would entitle her to coverage under the mother's OPCF 44R Family Protection Endorsement.

The court reviewed evidence from examinations under oath and concluded that the daughter maintained her own separate residence and did not reside with her mother, despite frequently staying over to provide care.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding residency and granted summary judgment dismissing the action against Unifund.

On a motion for partial summary judgment, a defendant sought dismissal of the action against it as statute-barred under ss. 4 and 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that the limitation issue was a discrete issue suitable for partial summary judgment under the governing appellate framework.

The court found that the material facts supporting a negligence claim against the moving party were known, or ought reasonably to have been known, when counsel received and reviewed the police materials, not when a later witness interview was obtained.

As the claim against the moving party was deemed commenced more than two years after that discovery date, the action against that defendant was dismissed.

This mid-trial ruling addressed the defendants' intention to cross-examine the plaintiff and her property guardian on the total amount of an accident benefits settlement in a tort action.

The court denied permission to inquire about the total settlement amount, finding its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value, especially given the plaintiff's mild brain injury.

However, the court allowed cross-examination on specific components of the settlement (caregiver, attendant care, and housekeeping/home maintenance expenses) that were expressly pleaded and denied, deeming these relevant to the mitigation defence.

The ruling clarified that collateral benefits are deducted by the trial judge as a matter of law after the jury's verdict.

The applicants sought a declaration that their motor vehicle insurance policy with the respondent was valid, or alternatively, relief from forfeiture, after the respondent denied coverage following an accident involving the applicants' son.

The respondent had voided the policy because the applicants failed to disclose upon renewal that their son had obtained his G2 license and was living in the household.

The court found that the failure to disclose the son's G2 license was a material change in risk that breached the Insurance Act and Statutory Conditions, rendering the policy void.

The court also denied relief from forfeiture, holding that the failure to advise of a material change in risk constitutes non-compliance with a condition precedent, not imperfect compliance with a policy term.

The defendants brought a motion for relief from the deemed undertaking under Rule 30.1.01(8) to use portions of the plaintiff's examination for discovery transcript from the civil action in a related statutory accident benefits (SABS) claim before the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The plaintiff argued the court lacked jurisdiction and that the LAT should decide the issue.

The court held it had jurisdiction to waive the deemed undertaking, leaving admissibility to the LAT.

The court granted the motion, finding the interest of justice outweighed any prejudice because the plaintiff had consented to the defendants' counsel acting in both proceedings and knew Canada Post was the sole decision-maker for both claims.