Lisa M. Carr

The appellant, a collision repair and storage facility, appealed the dismissal of its application to have an initial certificate issued by Intact Insurance under section 24(5) of the Repair and Storage Liens Act declared null and void.

The dispute arose over storage charges for a motor vehicle.

The appellant argued that Intact was not entitled to obtain the certificate because it had not yet paid the vehicle owner for the loss.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that Intact, having assumed liability under the insurance contract, was subrogated to the rights of its insured under section 278 of the Insurance Act and was therefore a person lawfully entitled to the vehicle under the RSLA.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to Intact.

The appellants, towing companies owned by members of the Six Nations of Grand River Indian Reserve, sought to retain vehicles towed and stored at their facilities pending payment of towing and storage fees.

The respondent insurance company, which had acquired ownership of the vehicles following accidents or thefts, brought applications under the Repair and Storage Liens Act to retrieve the vehicles.

The appellants claimed exemption from the provincial lien regime under section 89(1) of the Indian Act, arguing that the vehicles constituted personal property of Indians located on a reserve and therefore could not be seized by non-Indian parties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that section 89(1) of the Indian Act only protects against seizure by creditors or the Crown, not by debtors.

Since the respondent was a debtor rather than a creditor, the appellants could not claim the protection of section 89(1).

The respondent storage facility claimed approximately $25,000 in storage fees for a vehicle deemed a total loss by the applicant insurer.

The respondent commenced an application in Small Claims Court under s. 23 of the Repair and Storage Liens Act to determine the lien amount.

The applicant subsequently commenced an application in the Superior Court under s. 24 of the Act, paying the disputed amount into court to secure the vehicle's release.

The respondent moved to terminate the Superior Court proceeding, arguing its prior Small Claims Court application deprived the Superior Court of jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the motion to terminate, finding that s. 23(2) does not create a temporal limitation based on which application was filed first.

However, because the disputed amount was under $25,000, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to transfer the Superior Court application to the Small Claims Court to be consolidated with the respondent's application.

The appellant, Royal Windsor Collision Centre, appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent, Julie Hoffman, damages for unauthorized vehicle repairs and rental car costs.

The appeal focused on the award for unauthorized repairs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge reasonably exercised discretion regarding an adjournment request and correctly determined that the "repair without authorization" issue was adequately pleaded.

The court also found it unnecessary to rule on the conversion claim, but noted the original pleading did not allege conversion.

The applicant storage company sought a declaration that an initial certificate issued to the respondent insurer under s. 24 of the Repair and Storage Liens Act was null and void.

The applicant argued the insurer lacked standing because it had not yet indemnified the insured for the total loss of her vehicle.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the insurer had assumed liability for the storage fees under the insurance contract and was therefore subrogated to the insured's rights under s. 278(1) of the Insurance Act, giving it standing as a person lawfully entitled to the automobile.