K. Jay Ralston

Following a jurisdiction motion where the defendant insurers successfully argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the proposed class actions, the insurers sought costs of approximately $620,000.

The court found this request preposterous and excessive, fixing costs payable by the plaintiffs to the 13 non-settling insurers at $28,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The costs payable by the government regulator to the plaintiffs were settled at $12,500.

The plaintiffs filed proposed class actions against 15 auto insurers and the provincial regulator, FSCO, alleging improper deduction of HST from statutory accident benefits.

The defendant insurers brought motions to dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes.

The court agreed, dismissing the actions against the insurers and refusing to approve two early settlements, as the claims fell squarely within the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction under s. 280 of the Insurance Act.

However, the court found it had jurisdiction to hear the claims against FSCO for regulatory negligence, as those allegations did not directly concern benefit entitlements or amounts.

The appellant applied for relief to enforce a promissory note assigned to him by a corporation.

The application judge dismissed the application on a without-prejudice basis, finding the appellant had not proven the validity of the assignment, but stated she would remain seized if further proceedings were brought.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the application judge erred in principle by putting the parties to the expense of a new proceeding.

To avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, the judge should have directed the trial of an issue under Rule 38.10(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision allowing the insured to proceed to arbitration regarding the stoppage of income replacement benefits despite the expiry of the two-year limitation period.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's finding that the Notice of Stoppage (OCF-17) was invalid because it misleadingly indicated that requesting a Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) assessment was a mandatory prerequisite to disputing the stoppage.

Because the notice failed to properly inform the insured of the dispute resolution process, it did not constitute a clear and unequivocal refusal, and the limitation period was never triggered.

The insurer appealed a preliminary arbitration decision which found that the insured was not precluded from proceeding to arbitration despite the expiry of the two-year limitation period.

The arbitrator had ruled that the termination form (OCF-17) was confusing and did not properly commence the limitation period.

The Director's Delegate acknowledged the appeal, finding that the issue of whether an approved form was insufficient to commence the limitation period was novel and of great importance, and that the insurer raised bona fide legal issues.