5 total
Successful insurer received $7,500 in partial indemnity costs.
This was a costs ruling following an appeal involving the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund and an insurer.
The successful responding party sought partial indemnity costs of $7,500 from total accounts of $10,072.45, while the unsuccessful party argued the appeal was not complex and proposed $5,000.
The court applied Rule 57.01 and the principle of indemnity, emphasizing the importance of the issue to both the parties and the motor vehicle insurance industry, the time spent by senior counsel, and the quality of the materials and submissions.
The court held that $7,500 inclusive of GST and disbursements was fair and reasonable.
A golf cart driven on a highway requires insurance and qualifies as an automobile for accident benefits.
The respondent was injured when she fell off a golf cart being driven on a highway.
She applied to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund for statutory accident benefits.
The Fund denied the claim, arguing that golf carts are exempt from the requirement to carry motor vehicle liability insurance under the Off-Road Vehicles Act.
The Director's Delegate affirmed the Arbitrator's decision that while golf carts are exempt when driven off-road, the exemption does not apply when driven on a highway.
Under the Highway Traffic Act and the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, a golf cart driven on a highway is a motor vehicle requiring insurance, and therefore qualifies as an 'automobile' for the purpose of statutory accident benefits.
The Fund's appeal was dismissed.
A golf cart driven on a public highway is an automobile for statutory accident benefits purposes.
The applicant was injured when she fell off a motorized golf cart being driven on a public highway.
She applied for statutory accident benefits, which were denied by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund on the basis that a golf cart is not an automobile.
On a preliminary issue hearing, the arbitrator held that a golf cart driven on a highway falls within the definition of a 'motor vehicle' under the Highway Traffic Act and is therefore required to be insured under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.
Consequently, it qualifies as an 'automobile' under section 224(1) of the Insurance Act, entitling the applicant to claim statutory accident benefits.
Medical malpractice appeal dismissed; trial judge correctly found no breach of standard of care.
The appellant underwent a laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy and subsequently developed a severe infection and an ileovaginal fistula.
She sued her gynecologist and the general surgeon who performed a subsequent exploratory laparotomy for medical malpractice, alleging a burn injury to her small bowel caused the fistula.
The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no breach of the standard of care and that the fistula was caused by infection, not a burn.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings of fact and concluding that the 'but for' test for causation was correctly applied.
An insurer has no duty to defend an action where the pleadings allege only acts excluded from policy coverage.
The respondent lawyer was sued for fraud by a bank.
He sought a defence from his liability insurer.
The insurer denied the obligation to defend, relying on an exclusion clause for fraudulent acts.
The bank later discontinued the action, and the respondent sued the insurer for his unrecovered defence costs.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the duty to defend is governed by the pleadings.
Since the pleadings only alleged fraud, which was excluded from coverage, the insurer had no duty to defend.
The appeal by the insurer was allowed.
