3 total
Application for judicial review dismissed; interest on retroactive accident benefits runs from claim filing date.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate's decision upholding an arbitrator's rulings on interest and costs in an accident benefits dispute.
The applicant argued that interest on retroactive attendant care benefits should be calculated from an earlier date, and challenged the costs award.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the interest issue was squarely governed by the court's prior decision in Grigoroff, which held that interest runs from the date the retroactive claim form is filed.
The court also found the costs award was highly discretionary and the Delegate's decision to uphold it was reasonable.
The court dismissed a summary judgment motion by social hosts, finding genuine issues for trial regarding their duty of care to an underage guest who drove impaired.
The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss a social host liability claim arising from a party where an underage guest became intoxicated and was seriously injured in a car accident after leaving.
The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact that could not be fairly and justly determined on summary judgment.
The court also held that the established law on social host liability, particularly *Childs v. Desormeaux*, did not preclude a duty of care in this case, especially given the presence of underage drinking and the host's supervisory role.
Guaranteed replacement cost coverage requires rebuilding at the same location.
Insured homeowners sought summary judgment claiming entitlement to guaranteed replacement cost coverage under a homeowners insurance policy after their residence was destroyed by fire.
Instead of rebuilding on the original site, the insureds purchased a different home in another location and asserted that this constituted a “replacement” within the meaning of the policy’s endorsement.
The insurer maintained that the endorsement only modified the monetary limit of coverage and did not displace the policy’s requirement that replacement occur on the same site to qualify for replacement cost benefits.
The court held that the endorsement must be interpreted in conjunction with the underlying policy and that replacement cost coverage remained contingent on reconstruction at the same location.
Because the insureds relocated rather than rebuilding, their loss was limited to actual cash value coverage.
