John Lykos

The applicant, acting through a litigation guardian under power of attorney due to neurocognitive disability, sought court approval under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for a SABS settlement arising from a 2017 traffic accident.

The settlement had been negotiated by a licensed paralegal rather than a lawyer, raising a procedural issue under subrule 7.08(4)(b) which requires an affidavit from the lawyer who acted for the litigation guardian.

The court concluded that Rule 7.08 does not apply to SABS settlements because the Insurance Act confers exclusive jurisdiction over SABS disputes on the Licence Appeal Tribunal, and paragraph 3 of subrule 1.02(1) excludes the Rules of Civil Procedure where a statute provides a different procedure.

The application was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but the court clarified the dismissal does not invalidate or disapprove the settlement.

The appellant was injured on a GO Bus and awarded $35,000 in non-pecuniary damages by a jury.

The trial judge reduced the award to zero by applying the statutory deductible under the Insurance Act, finding that while the respondent employer was vicariously liable, its liability could not exceed that of its protected employee driver pursuant to s. 267.5(10.1).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that an employer's vicarious liability is capped at the amount for which the protected defendant employee is liable.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing her personal injury action for delay.

The action arose from an alleged injury during a massage in 2010.

The court found the plaintiff's delay was egregious and lacked a reasonable explanation, but accepted that the deadline was missed inadvertently.

Applying a contextual approach, the court concluded the defendant would suffer no actual prejudice and set aside the dismissal order, allowing the action to proceed on its merits.