Maple Anne Cameron

The appellant obstetrician appealed a jury's finding of negligence and causation in a birth injury case, arguing the jury misapplied the "but for" test and that the verdict was unreasonable due to lack of evidence on timely delivery.

The appellant also claimed the trial judge improperly questioned witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the jury's application of the "but for" test, finding the verdict reasonable based on expert evidence, and concluding the trial judge's questions were proper clarifications within established judicial protocol.

The appellant, a self-employed eavestrough installer, purchased disability insurance from the respondent insurer.

After suffering injuries from a fall in 2007, he received disability benefits until November 2011, when the insurer terminated payments.

The insurer's lawyer sent a letter in January 2012 explaining the termination.

The appellant did not commence an action until April 2015, more than two years after the termination.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the insurer breached its duty of good faith by failing to inform him of the applicable limitation period when it terminated his benefits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that an insurer's duty of good faith does not require it to give notice of a limitation period to its insured.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages for injuries sustained from a trip and fall on a city-owned sidewalk.

The parties settled on damages quantum, leaving liability as the sole issue.

The court applied a two-step analysis under s. 44 of the Municipal Act, 2001, first assessing if the sidewalk was in a reasonable state of repair, considering its character and location.

The court found the sidewalk's discontinuity (11-19 mm, 16 mm at the point of fall) was within the City's adopted Provincial Minimum Maintenance Standards (20 mm maximum) for a small residential street, thus meeting a reasonable standard of repair.

The plaintiff failed to prove the City's non-repair.

Although the action was dismissed, the court also found the plaintiff 20% contributorily negligent for not paying reasonable attention to the sidewalk.

The defendant insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for disability benefits, arguing it was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found the insurer's denial letter was clear and unequivocal, triggering the two-year limitation period in January 2012.

The plaintiff's action, commenced in April 2015, was therefore out of time.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the insurer had a common law duty to advise the insured of the limitation period, stating such an extension of the duty of good faith should be left to the legislature.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action dismissed.