Marie Sydney

The Minister of Finance appealed an arbitrator's decision that an Elite Insurance policy was not in force at the time of a motor vehicle accident, despite Elite's invalid non-renewal notice.

The arbitrator had found the policy automatically renewed for only a six-month term due to mutual intent to end the contractual relationship.

The Superior Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable, holding that Section 236(5) of the Insurance Act clearly displaces common law principles of contract renewal, meaning the policy remained in force until Elite properly discharged its statutory notice obligations.

The Minister's appeal was allowed, and Elite's cross-appeal regarding the invalidity of its non-renewal notice was dismissed.

The respondent sustained a catastrophic impairment in a 2012 motor vehicle accident and received attendant care services from her mother, who took an unpaid leave from work.

Effective February 1, 2014, the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule was amended to limit attendant care benefits for non-professional providers to the amount of their economic loss.

The arbitrator found that the amendment did not apply to the respondent because her accident occurred before the amendment.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate reversed the decision, holding that under s. 268(1) of the Insurance Act, the amendment applies to all existing policies and claims for services provided after the amendment's effective date.

The respondent did not have a vested right to have her benefits determined under the pre-amendment Schedule.

The applicant was catastrophically injured in a snowmobile accident and claimed attendant care benefits for services provided by her mother.

The insurer disputed the claims for periods when the applicant was hospitalized and when she lived with her boyfriend, and argued that a 2014 amendment to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule limited the benefit to the mother's economic loss.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims for the hospital and boyfriend periods, finding the applicant failed to prove economic loss and actual receipt of services, respectively.

However, the arbitrator held that the 2014 amendment did not apply retrospectively to limit the applicant's vested right to attendant care benefits.

Interest was awarded on overdue amounts, but the claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

The Personal Insurance Company sought leave to appeal a motion judge's denial of summary judgment in a tort action.

The motion judge had found the summary judgment motion premature, requiring evidence of "other uninsured vehicles" and deferring coverage issues until trial.

The Superior Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision because the evidence sought was irrelevant to the issues and deferring coverage issues until trial was problematic.

The court also found the appeal involved matters of province-wide importance regarding uninsured coverage under the Insurance Act.

The applicant sought to revoke an order dismissing her application for arbitration regarding statutory accident benefits.

The original order was made after she failed to attend pre-hearings and the arbitration hearing because she was out of the country.

The applicant provided evidence that she was unable to travel back to Canada due to a high-risk pregnancy and lacked the means to contact her solicitors while abroad.

The arbitrator found that this information was not reasonably available at the time of the arbitration and that the most just result was to allow the matter to proceed on its merits.

The application to revoke the dismissal order was granted, and the parties were ordered to bear their own expenses.

The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund appealed an arbitrator's decision ordering it to pay a fixed amount of attendant care benefits to the insured from June 2011 to December 2012.

The insured cross-appealed the denial of benefits prior to June 2011.

The Director's Delegate allowed the Fund's appeal, finding the arbitrator erred in ordering payment for unincurred services and in denying the Fund deductions for collateral benefits after a lump sum settlement.

The insured's cross-appeal was dismissed as he failed to prove expenses were incurred or that the Fund unreasonably withheld payment prior to the second accident.

The Applicant sought accident benefits following an incident where he was assaulted by individuals who threw a rock at him from a vehicle, punched and kicked him, and then struck him with the vehicle as they drove away.

The Arbitrator found that the injuries from the assault (rock, punches, kicks) did not arise from an 'accident' as defined in the Schedule, but the soft tissue injuries from being struck by the retreating vehicle did.

However, the Applicant's claims for Income Replacement Benefits were denied due to a lack of credible evidence regarding his employment status at the time of the accident.

The Arbitrator also concluded that the injuries sustained from the vehicle contact fell within the Minor Injury Guideline, restricting his entitlement to Medical and Rehabilitation Benefits.

The applicant was involved in two serious motor vehicle accidents, the first in December 2010 and the second in June 2011, which rendered him a paraplegic.

He applied for attendant care benefits from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund for the first accident while receiving benefits from another insurer for the second.

The arbitrator found the applicant was not entitled to benefits for the period between the two accidents because he failed to prove the expenses were incurred and the Fund did not unreasonably withhold payment.

For the period after the second accident, the arbitrator determined the applicant required 24-hour care and was entitled to $9,432.25 per month, subject to deduction of amounts received from the other insurer to prevent double recovery.

Claims for retroactive benefits, hospital stay benefits, interest, and a special award were dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside Notices of Discontinuance previously filed against an insurer and the Superintendent of Financial Services in a motor vehicle accident action.

The discontinuances had been filed after another insurer accepted priority for accident benefits, leading the parties to believe it would also be responsible for uninsured motorist coverage.

Years later, that insurer reversed its position, creating uncertainty as to coverage and potential recovery.

The court held that although the discontinuances were not filed through inadvertence, they were based on a shared misapprehension of the factual circumstances regarding insurance responsibility.

Given the lack of significant prejudice to the former defendants and the risk of severe prejudice to the plaintiff, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to set aside the discontinuances.

The action was permitted to proceed against the insurer and the Superintendent.