4 total
Appeal allowed and new trial ordered where trial judge applied unpleaded defences post-trial without notice.
The appellants appealed the dismissal of their collection action against the respondents, who had guaranteed a vendor take-back mortgage.
The trial judge dismissed the action based on two defences—inadequate independent legal advice and failure to make a formal demand—that were not pleaded or raised during the trial.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge breached procedural fairness by effectively amending the pleadings on his own initiative post-trial without giving the appellants adequate notice or a meaningful opportunity to respond.
A new trial was ordered.
Application for accident benefits dismissed as statute-barred due to expiry of the two-year limitation period.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The insurer denied income replacement benefits and three treatment plans in 2019 and 2020.
The applicant filed an application to dispute the denials in October 2023, beyond the two-year limitation period.
The Tribunal found that the insurer's denial notices were valid and compliant with the Schedule, triggering the limitation period.
The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period as the applicant provided no submissions.
The application was dismissed as statute-barred.
Stay of proceedings lifted to allow plaintiffs to pursue bankrupt's liability insurance via equitable trust declaration.
The plaintiffs sued the defendant, a land use consulting company, for professional negligence causing pure economic loss.
The defendant third-partied its lawyers and subsequently filed for bankruptcy, staying the action.
The plaintiffs moved to lift the stay under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to access the bankrupt's professional liability insurance.
The third parties opposed, arguing that under Ontario law (Perry v. General Security Insurance), s. 132 of the Insurance Act does not permit direct recovery against an insurer for pure economic loss.
The Registrar granted the motion, lifting the stay to allow the plaintiffs to amend their claim to seek a declaration that the bankrupt holds the insurance policy in trust, thereby utilizing equitable principles to bypass the strictures of s. 132.
Arbitrator lacks jurisdiction to award expenses against a representative who improperly withdraws from proceeding.
The applicant's representative sought to withdraw from the arbitration proceeding on the eve of the hearing.
The insurer sought costs against the representative or the applicant.
The arbitrator found that the representative had misrepresented the circumstances of his withdrawal and that the real litigant was the assessment facility.
However, the arbitrator concluded he lacked jurisdiction under the Insurance Act to award expenses against a representative.
The arbitrator declined to award expenses against the applicant, finding him largely blameless, but ordered the applicant to withdraw the arbitration or face costs, and imposed a $3,000 penalty if the applicant commenced a future arbitration for the same assessment.
