Michael Chadwick

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident involving a rental vehicle leased by the defendant lessee but driven by an unauthorized third party.

The sole issue at trial was whether the lessee had given express or implied consent to his friend to possess the vehicle, which would make the lessee vicariously liable under s. 192(3) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The court rejected the lessee's evidence that he had flatly refused his friend's request to use the vehicle, finding his subsequent conduct inconsistent with a refusal.

The court concluded that the presumption of consent was not rebutted and held the lessee vicariously liable for the negligent operation of the vehicle.

The defendant vehicle owner brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claim against him arising from a rear-end collision, arguing the driver had taken the vehicle without consent under s.192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The record included a statutory declaration from the driver asserting she had taken the vehicle without consent, but conflicting statements and incomplete discovery evidence raised credibility concerns.

The court held that inconsistencies, evidentiary gaps, and unresolved credibility issues prevented a fair determination on the written record.

Applying the summary judgment framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court declined to grant summary judgment and ordered a limited oral hearing.

A mini-trial was directed to determine whether the driver had the owner’s implied consent to possess the vehicle.

The moving defendant sought summary judgment dismissing a motor vehicle negligence action against her arising from a collision caused by her estranged spouse driving her vehicle while impaired.

The issue was whether the vehicle was in the driver’s possession with the owner’s implied consent under s. 192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act, or alternatively whether the owner was negligent in safeguarding her car keys.

The court held the owner rebutted the statutory presumption of consent, finding she had taken reasonable steps to prevent access to the vehicle and did not grant express or implied permission.

The alleged inconsistencies in her testimony were immaterial and did not undermine credibility on the central issues.

The court also rejected the insurer’s negligence argument, finding the owner acted as a reasonable and prudent person in controlling the keys.