Marshman

The insured's vehicle was damaged when her daughter, experiencing an acute psychotic episode, drove it across three lanes of traffic and into a tree.

The insurer denied coverage, arguing the daughter's actions were intentional.

The trial judge found the loss was 'accidental' as the daughter lacked conscious control of the vehicle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the insurer's appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding and further noting that the innocent insured owner was entitled to coverage regardless, as the event was unexpected from her perspective.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Law Society Hearing Panel decision that revoked his licence for practising while suspended.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application because the applicant had not exhausted his statutory right to appeal to the Appeal Panel.

The Court also noted that the application lacked merit, as the Hearing Panel's decision was reasonable.

The appellant insurer appealed an order granting partial summary judgment which declared that the respondent's action for disability benefits was commenced within the limitation period.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge erred in holding that a clear and unequivocal denial was necessary to trigger the limitation period.

Because discoverability issues were raised, there was a genuine issue for trial, and the matter should not have been determined on a motion for summary judgment.

The respondent property owner initially sought retroactive reclassification of his property, but amended his application to seek a fairness hearing regarding his municipal taxes.

The application judge reduced the respondent's taxes owing to $3,000, relying on inherent and equitable jurisdiction.

The municipality appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Assessment Act and Municipal Act provide a comprehensive statutory mechanism for tax assessment and collection, and the application judge lacked jurisdiction to circumvent this framework to alter property classifications or reduce taxes.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to refer his employment discrimination complaint to a tribunal.

The complaint alleged discrimination based on race and colour.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and found that the Commission reasonably concluded there was insufficient evidence to warrant a referral.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.