Derek Smith

The moving defendant sought security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Ontario and had no assets within the jurisdiction.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, asserting impecuniosity and arguing that an order for security would prevent the claim from proceeding.

The court granted leave to bring the motion despite it being brought late after the action had been set down for trial.

However, the court accepted the evidence that the plaintiff lacked financial resources and would be unable to post security.

Applying the principle that meritorious claims should not be prevented from proceeding due to poverty unless plainly devoid of merit, the court dismissed the motion.

Following a motor vehicle accident, the injured party settled her tort claim.

The settlement included an agreement that the defendants' insurer would negotiate OHIP's subrogated claim directly.

When the insurer later refused to pay, OHIP sued.

The trial judge found a binding agreement existed and that the insurer was estopped from raising a limitation defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's appeal, finding no palpable error in the trial judge's conclusion that an agreement was reached, and holding that the six-year limitation period did not begin to run until OHIP received notice of the insurer's repudiation of the contract.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his civil action relating to a motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury trial where damages were assessed at $34,000, the trial judge ruled that the plaintiff failed to meet the threshold under s. 266(1)(b) of the Insurance Act and dismissed the action.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued the trial judge erred in his jury charge, in relying on the jury's findings for the threshold issue, and in finding the threshold was not met.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the jury charge, confirming a judge may consider the jury verdict on the threshold issue, and agreeing the plaintiff did not meet the onus to establish a permanent serious impairment.