John Friendly

The appellant Minister appealed an arbitrator's decision holding the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund liable to pay statutory accident benefits to a passenger injured in a snowmobile accident.

The passenger was riding on an uninsured snowmobile that crashed into a tree, followed 0.6 seconds later by an insured snowmobile crashing into the same tree.

The arbitrator found the insured snowmobile was not 'involved in the incident' because it did not cause or contribute to the injuries.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator erred in law by engrafting a causation requirement onto the plain meaning of 'involved in the incident' under s. 268(2)(1)(iii) of the Insurance Act.

The moving party, an employee who drove a tour bus involved in a pedestrian collision, sought to set aside or stay a judgment entered against him.

Unbeknownst to him, his employer's vehicle was uninsured, he was never served with the statement of claim, and the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund had taken over the defence and settled the action for $231,068.

The court declined to set aside the judgment due to the prejudice it would cause the plaintiff and the Fund's statutory framework.

However, the court granted a stay of execution against the employee, finding it would be unjust to enforce the judgment against him given his reasonable belief that the commercial vehicle was insured and his complete lack of knowledge of the litigation.

The appellant, an undocumented immigrant living in Ontario, was struck by an unidentified motorist and sought compensation from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

The Superintendent denied the claim under s. 25(1) of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act, arguing the appellant was not ordinarily resident in Ontario.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the Superintendent, finding the appellant's presence was illegal and deceptive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the Superintendent only needed to prove the appellant was not ordinarily resident in Ontario, not his specific foreign jurisdiction of residence.

The plaintiffs were entirely successful on a motion to add a proposed defendant after the expiry of the limitation period.

Both sides sought costs of the motion.

The proposed defendant argued that the plaintiffs' conscious decision not to add him within the limitation period caused the motion.

The court found that the proposed defendant's insurer chose to oppose the motion rather than pleading the limitation period and bringing a summary judgment motion, effectively giving itself two chances to defeat the claim.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs, fixed at the exact amount the proposed defendant had claimed as reasonable costs if he had been successful.

The plaintiff moved to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing a personal injury action as abandoned following a motor vehicle accident involving an unidentified driver.

Applying the contextual approach endorsed in appellate authority, the court treated the Reid criteria as central but not rigid prerequisites.

Although the plaintiff’s counsel did not fully explain every delay and the motion was not brought promptly, the court found the plaintiff intended to prosecute the action and that the responding insurer bore greater responsibility for the dismissal because it obtained indulgences yet failed to file even a notice of intent to defend.

In the absence of evidence of actual prejudice, the balance of justice favoured reinstating the action.

The defendant, the Superintendent of Financial Services, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, who was ordinarily resident in Brazil.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing impecuniosity and that his claim against the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund was not barred despite his illegal residency status in Canada at the time of the accident.

The court found the plaintiff failed to establish impecuniosity, as he had a brother in Ontario with income and unexplained post-accident earnings.

The court deemed the merits of the claim a neutral factor, leaving the statutory interpretation issue for a pending summary judgment motion.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post $25,000 in security for costs in installments.

A cyclist was injured by an unidentified motorist and applied to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund for statutory accident benefits.

The application lacked a police report.

The Fund later learned of a 911 call but delayed seeking a court order to obtain the call records for over seven months.

Once obtained, the records identified the motorist and their insurer, Pilot Insurance Company.

The Fund then notified Pilot of its intent to dispute priority.

The Court of Appeal held that while the application became functionally adequate when the 911 records were obtained, the Fund's lack of diligence in pursuing the records meant it should be treated as having received a completed application months earlier.

Consequently, the Fund failed to meet the 90-day notice requirement under s. 3 of O. Reg. 283/95 and remains responsible for paying the benefits.