3 total
Extension of time to perfect appeal granted due to COVID-19 challenges and lack of prejudice.
The moving parties sought an extension of time to perfect their appeal after missing the deadline set by a Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay.
The delay was caused by the suspension of procedural time limits due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent communication issues between co-counsel.
The Court of Appeal granted the extension, finding that the moving parties had a reasonable explanation for the delay, there was no prejudice to the responding parties, and the appeal had arguable merit.
Arbitration dismissed because the insured never claimed specific benefits, meaning no issues were mediated.
The insured was injured in a motorcycle accident and failed to notify his insurer of a potential claim until years later.
The arbitrator found the insured had a reasonable explanation for the delay and could proceed to arbitration despite not filing a Report of Mediator, as mediation was deemed to have failed.
On appeal, the Director's Delegate upheld the finding of a reasonable explanation but allowed the appeal on the basis that the insured had never claimed a specific accident benefit.
Consequently, there were no issues in dispute that had failed at mediation, precluding the insured from proceeding to arbitration.
Subclass certification denied because release validity required individualized factual inquiries.
In a nationally certified class action alleging defective organic roofing shingles, the plaintiff moved to amend the certification order to add a subclass of homeowners who had previously settled warranty claims with the defendant manufacturer and signed release forms.
The plaintiff sought certification of common issues regarding the scope of the releases and whether they were unconscionable, along with summary judgment on those issues.
The court held that determining the scope of each release and whether it was unconscionable required highly individualized factual inquiries into negotiations, compensation, homeowner circumstances, and surrounding context.
Because these issues lacked sufficient commonality across the proposed subclass, they could not be certified as common issues under the Class Proceedings Act.
The proposed release subclass and related objector subclass were therefore refused certification.
