Michael Blinick

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking payment of an accidental death benefit and other expenses under an insurance policy following the death of an international student in the downing of Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752 by Iranian missiles.

The defendant insurers argued the claim was excluded under a clause denying coverage for losses related to an act of declared or undeclared war, or military or usurped power.

The court excluded the defendants' expert evidence on the ultimate issue of policy interpretation.

Relying on the Canadian Forensic Examination and Assessment Team report, the court found the missile strike was not premeditated and did not constitute an act of war or an act of a usurped power.

The court granted partial summary judgment for the $100,000 accidental death benefit but dismissed the claim for repatriation and travel expenses without prejudice due to a lack of evidence.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

Two years after the accident, the plaintiff suffered a severe stroke that left him totally disabled.

The central issue was whether the accident caused the stroke due to the plaintiff's alleged increased smoking and sedentary lifestyle following the collision.

The court found the stroke was an unrelated intervening event, relying on expert evidence that the plaintiff's heavy smoking predated the accident and his lifestyle was not sufficiently sedentary to cause a deep vein thrombosis.

The court awarded $100,000 in general damages for the accident-related chronic pain and mechanical back issues, but denied future income loss and most future care costs, as the plaintiff's total disability was caused by the non-compensable stroke.

The defendant, a California corporation that dissolved after allegedly supplying a defective generator but before the plaintiff commenced its action, brought a motion to dismiss the action against it for lack of legal capacity to be sued in Ontario.

The court applied conflict of laws principles, determining that while capacity to be sued is procedural, the legal status of a foreign entity is a substantive issue governed by the law of its place of incorporation.

Because the California Corporations Code permits dissolved corporations to continue to exist for the purpose of defending actions, the court found the defendant had the legal capacity to be sued in Ontario and dismissed the motion.