8 total
Appeal dismissed; alleged misrepresentation regarding replacement value coverage did not override explicit policy renewal terms.
The appellants appealed a decision denying their claim for replacement value coverage under their automobile insurance policy.
The appellants argued that an insurance agent misrepresented that the coverage would last for five full years from the vehicle's delivery, whereas the policy terms ended the coverage at the policy expiry date between four and five years.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the policy terms were not surprising or shocking, a new contract was formed upon the annual renewal which explicitly excluded the coverage, and the appellants did not rely on the alleged misrepresentation to their detriment.
Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent in the agreed amount of $21,000.
Following the release of the court's decision on the appeal, the parties reached an agreement regarding costs.
The court ordered costs of the appeal to the respondent in the agreed amount of $21,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and all applicable taxes.
Appeal of liability for fire damage dismissed; trial judge's reasons resolving conflicting expert evidence were sufficient.
The appellant appealed a trial judge's finding of liability for a fire that destroyed his hotel and damaged adjacent buildings owned by the respondents.
The trial judge had accepted the respondents' expert evidence that the fire was caused by a defective boiler and inadequate clearance of its exhaust ventilation duct.
On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge provided insufficient reasons and failed to articulate the standard of care.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons adequately explained his resolution of the conflicting expert evidence and his conclusion that the appellant's failure to maintain the boiler breached the standard of care and caused the fire.
Motion for interim benefits partially granted; request for active 'facilitator' at hearing denied.
The applicant, who suffered a brain injury in a motor vehicle accident, brought a motion for interim benefits, production of documents, and directions regarding the hearing process.
The arbitrator denied the request for further production of the insurer's file, finding no evidence to displace litigation privilege or justify reopening discovery.
The arbitrator also denied an increase in interim income replacement benefits but granted interim medical and rehabilitation benefits on consent.
The arbitrator addressed the applicant's request for a 'facilitator' to assist her at the hearing, ruling that while she could have a support person present, that person could not actively participate or act as an advocate.
The hearing was bifurcated to deal first with the issue of whether the applicant sustained an impairment from the accident.
Arbitrator appoints amicus curiae for self-represented applicant and orders interim benefits as condition of adjournment.
The applicant, who was self-represented, sought the appointment of an amicus curiae and an order for interim benefits as conditions for adjourning her arbitration hearing for statutory accident benefits.
The insurer had requested the adjournment pending a judicial review on a related procedural issue.
The arbitrator granted the request to appoint a lawyer as a 'friend of the court' to assist the unrepresented applicant.
Furthermore, the arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay interim income replacement benefits of $231.81 per week as a condition of the adjournment, finding that the applicant had demonstrated a serious issue to be tried regarding her disability and that the interim benefits would address the prejudice caused by the delay.
Application to vary or revoke order denying use of a facilitator at arbitration dismissed.
The applicant sought to vary or revoke an earlier appeal decision that denied her request to have a facilitator assist her during her arbitration hearing.
The Director of Arbitrations dismissed the application, finding no material change in circumstances, no new evidence that would have affected the outcome, and no error in the original order.
The application was characterized as an attempt to reopen an unsuccessful appeal.
Costs of $300 were awarded to the respondent.
Appeal dismissed; appellant with alleged brain injury not permitted to use a lay facilitator.
The appellant, who claimed to suffer from a traumatic brain injury following a motor vehicle accident, appealed an Arbitrator's preliminary order denying her request to have a friend act as a 'facilitator' during her accident benefits arbitration.
The Director of Arbitrations dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Arbitrator's conclusion that the appellant had the mental capacity to conduct her own case.
The Director reviewed conflicting medical evidence and concluded that the proposed facilitator's role blurred the line between communication assistance and representation, which is restricted under the Insurance Act.
Appeal from refusal to enforce settlement dismissed as motion judge's discretion was supported by evidence.
The appellant appealed an order of the motion judge who declined to enforce a settlement.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding there was ample evidence to support the motion judge's findings of fact and exercise of discretion.
