James R. Howie

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking answers to outstanding undertakings and refusals made by The Personal Insurance Company, a statutory third party, regarding its denial of coverage for the defendant Jouvaine M. Stennett.

The Personal argued that coverage issues are distinct from liability proceedings and that a statutory third party is not required to disclose information about its coverage position during discovery.

The court held that while coverage issues are distinct from liability, the information sought is relevant to issues engaged in the litigation and necessary for efficient case management.

The court ordered The Personal to provide answers to the undertakings and refusals within 30 days and awarded costs of $5,000 to the plaintiffs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $5,000 payable by the moving party to the responding parties.

The appeal concerned whether a statutory accident benefits settlement notice complied with the commuted value disclosure requirement under s. 9.1(2), para. 5 of the Automobile Insurance Regulation.

The court held that a description of the maximum statutory accident benefits available to the insured was not a commuted value of those benefits, and that the notice provided did not satisfy the regulation.

The insured was therefore entitled to rescind the settlement under s. 9.1(4).

The court dismissed the appeal, while clarifying that an insurer may determine commuted value based on the information available if done in good faith and with clear factual assumptions.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitration decision finding it responsible for paying accident benefits to the injured respondent.

The injured respondent was a passenger in a vehicle insured by the respondent insurer, but was the spouse of a named insured under the appellant's policy.

The Director's Delegate held that the injured respondent qualified as an 'insured person' under the appellant's policy because she was an occupant of 'any other automobile'.

Under the priority rules, she was required to claim benefits from her spouse's insurer.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Director's Delegate also held there was no jurisdiction to award appeal expenses between insurers.

The Arbitrator issued a correction to a decision dated January 15, 1997, to amend an error in the name of the applicant's counsel.

The name 'Neil Sacks' was deleted and replaced with 'James R. Howie'.

The applicant, on behalf of her minor daughter who suffered a spinal cord injury in a motor vehicle accident, sought statutory accident benefits for the purchase of a new home.

The insurer argued its obligation was limited under subsection 41(1) of the 1994 Schedule to the cost of renovating the daughter's 'existing home', which was a townhouse owned by her mother's estranged husband.

The arbitrator held that the townhouse was the 'existing home' despite the lack of ownership by the insured, and that the insurer's present obligation towards a new home was restricted to the value of the renovations that would have been required for the townhouse.