Michael J. Huclack

The plaintiff insurer brought a motion to extend the deadline for setting the action down for trial, effectively seeking to avoid the Registrar's dismissal of the action for delay.

The court applied the test for setting aside a dismissal order, including the Reid factors.

Although the plaintiff failed to adequately explain its 19-month delay or prove inadvertence, the court granted the extension because the defendants failed to establish actual prejudice resulting from the delay.

However, due to the plaintiff's lengthy unexplained delays and conduct, the court ordered the successful plaintiff to pay the defendants $30,000 in substantial indemnity costs.

The appellant appealed a jury award of $114,216.44 arising from a motor vehicle collision, arguing the trial judge made several errors including admitting a WSIB statement of claim, failing to strike the jury due to improper cross-examination, and providing an inadequate jury charge.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's costs award regarding disbursements incurred after a Rule 49 settlement offer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice in the trial's conduct and insufficient evidence on the record to prove an error in the costs award.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order permitting the plaintiff to video-record a defence psychiatric examination.

The motions judge had allowed the recording because the defence doctor refused to allow the plaintiff to take notes or record the examination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decision under Rule 62.02(4)(a) and that the matter was not of general importance under Rule 62.02(4)(b), as the Court of Appeal had already established the legal principles in Bellamy v. Johnson.

Following the death of their daughter in a motor vehicle accident, the parents applied for death benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer paid a single $10,000 benefit to the father as the principal financial supporter, but denied the mother's claim for an additional $10,000 as the principal caregiver.

The Divisional Court held that multiple payments were required.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the modern rule of statutory interpretation and the legislative context of the SABS indicate that only a single $10,000 death benefit is payable under s. 25(2)(5)(i), which may be paid jointly to the principal financial supporter and caregiver.

A visitor was injured when a child lost control of a go-kart on the insureds' property.

The insureds claimed coverage under their homeowner's insurance policy.

The insurer denied coverage, relying on an exclusion for 'motorized land vehicles'.

The motion judge found the go-kart was a toy or 'implement' and thus excepted from the exclusion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the go-kart was a motorized land vehicle and did not fall within the exception for 'implements' such as lawnmowers or snow blowers.

The claim was therefore excluded from coverage.