Sachin Kumar

The Personal Insurance Company appealed a motion judge's decision striking out a third party claim against the plaintiffs' lawyers.

The plaintiffs had sued the insurer for negligence in failing to preserve a vehicle that might have helped prove their case in a personal injury action.

The insurer sought contribution and indemnity from the lawyers, alleging they breached their duty to preserve evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the third party claim, holding that the lawyers' alleged negligence fell within the scope of their retainer and was therefore attributable to the plaintiffs.

Where a third party's negligence is attributable to the plaintiff, no cause of action for contribution and indemnity exists against that third party.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and funding for a psychological treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a security guard.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's psychological assessment, which found no ongoing psychological impairment, and concluded the proposed treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) until the insurer terminated them based on an orthopedic assessment.

A preliminary issue hearing was held to determine whether the application should be dismissed because the applicant failed to provide requested financial information under sections 33 and 34 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's notice of termination was based solely on medical entitlement and did not mention suspension for non-compliance.

Therefore, the applicant was not required to provide further financial information at this stage, and the application for arbitration was allowed to proceed.

The appellant insurer sought a stay of an arbitrator's decision which found that mileage and parking expenses incurred by the respondent's spouse while providing attendant care services constituted an economic loss under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Director's Delegate applied the Armstrong criteria and denied the stay, finding that the appellant failed to provide evidence of hardship if the stay were refused, and noting the significant prejudice to the respondent caused by the delay in receiving benefits.

The defendant estate moved to stay or dismiss an Ontario action arising from a New York motor vehicle accident for lack of jurisdiction.

Applying the presumptive connecting factors in Van Breda, the court held that none of the recognized factors connected the dispute to Ontario, and declined to recognize a new factor based on the existence of a separate Ontario action arising from an earlier accident.

The court distinguished authority involving multiple defendants with Ontario connections and held that the defendant estate had no real relationship with Ontario.

The forum of necessity doctrine was also rejected because the plaintiff could have commenced a timely New York action before the limitation period expired.

The action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, with partial indemnity costs to the defendant.