M. Forget

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for long-term disability benefits on the basis that it was commenced outside the two-year limitation period.

The defendant also moved to dismiss the action for late service of the statement of claim, while the plaintiff cross-moved to validate service.

The court validated the late service of the statement of claim, finding the delay was due to solicitor inadvertence during the COVID-19 pandemic and caused no prejudice.

The court also allowed the summary judgment motion to proceed despite the defendant not having filed a statement of defence, finding the plaintiff's prior counsel had implicitly consented to the procedure.

On the limitation period issue, the court held that the plaintiff's claim was discovered when she received the initial denial letter, which clearly stated the denial was final and explicitly warned of the limitation period.

The internal appeal process did not pause the limitation period.

The action was dismissed as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their Statement of Claim to substitute a new corporate entity as the plaintiff, having mistakenly named the former property owners instead of the actual owner at the time of the fire loss.

The defendants opposed, arguing the limitation period had expired.

The court granted the amendment, finding it was a true case of misnomer and the defendants suffered no non-compensable prejudice.

The court also set aside an ex parte costs order previously made against the plaintiffs, finding their counsel's failure to attend the motion was due to an honest misunderstanding.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision when the defendant driver failed to yield the right-of-way at an intersection.

The plaintiff suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, depression, and chronic pain, which substantially interfered with her employment and daily life.

The court found the defendant driver fully liable and his employer vicariously liable.

The court held that the plaintiff's injuries met the statutory threshold for non-pecuniary damages and awarded $100,000 in general damages, $50,000 for loss of competitive advantage, and $45,000 in Family Law Act damages.

The court also discharged the jury due to inflammatory opening statements by defence counsel.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's personal injury action arising from a bicycle accident allegedly caused by the defendants' dog, the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of over $294,000.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding that the defendants' settlement offers lacked a substantive element of compromise and the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible.

Furthermore, the court reduced the defendants' partial indemnity costs by 40% to penalize their counsel's failure to disclose surveillance evidence, veterinary records, and other documents prior to trial, which undermined the policy of early settlement and full disclosure.

The plaintiffs' home and personal property were damaged by a fire.

They sued their insurer and the restoration contractor for incomplete and deficient repairs, unpaid additional living expenses, and damaged or destroyed personal property.

The insurer alleged the plaintiffs committed fraud in their proofs of loss.

The court found no fraud, holding that the insurer breached its duty of good faith by raising the fraud allegation as a high-handed litigation strategy.

The court awarded the plaintiffs damages for the deficient home repairs, additional living expenses, and lost personal property, along with $100,000 in punitive damages against the insurer.