Michael Warfe

The moving defendants (Ironman Canada Inc., Triathlon Ontario, and World Triathlon Corporation) sought summary judgment to dismiss a co-defendant's crossclaim and grant their counterclaim against the plaintiff, based on a Release and Waiver of Liability, Assumption of Risk and Indemnity Agreement.

The court found the waiver of the right to sue enforceable against the plaintiff, who had electronically accepted it.

However, the indemnity clause within the agreement was deemed unenforceable due to its dense, unclear legalese, which failed to adequately convey its meaning and onerous positive obligations.

The court also determined that the co-defendant motorist, Beatrice Jackson, was not a third-party beneficiary of the release, as she was not an entity associated or involved with the activities as defined in the agreement.

Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed in its entirety.

The appellant, seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident, sued her insurer for bad faith in handling her statutory accident benefits (SABs) claim, seeking punitive and exemplary damages.

The insurer had failed for approximately three years to advise the appellant or her parents that her injuries qualified as a catastrophic impairment or to inform them of available benefits.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim, finding that the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) had exclusive jurisdiction under section 280 of the Insurance Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, holding that the dispute resolution provisions of the Insurance Act apply broadly to disputes concerning SABs entitlement and administration, regardless of whether the claim is characterized as one for bad faith.

The Attorney General of Ontario applied for civil forfeiture of a property used as a Hells Angels clubhouse and various Hells Angels paraphernalia under the Civil Remedies Act.

The court found the property was both an instrument of unlawful activity, as it was used as a safe haven to plan crimes, and proceeds of unlawful activity, as its mortgage was paid using dues funded by criminal acts.

The court also found that official Hells Angels paraphernalia were instruments of unlawful activity used for intimidation.

The owners failed to establish the responsible or legitimate owner exceptions.

The court rejected arguments that a prior federal plea bargain rendered the provincial forfeiture clearly not in the interests of justice, and ordered forfeiture of the property and official paraphernalia, along with costs against the owners.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitral award determining it was the priority insurer required to pay statutory accident benefits to a claimant.

The arbitrator found the claimant was principally dependent on her mother and stepfather, triggering coverage under the mother's policy.

The appellant argued the arbitrator erred in calculating the claimant's means and needs, specifically regarding earning capacity, the value of housekeeping services, and the use of government statistics versus individualized assessments.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the arbitrator made no reviewable errors and correctly applied the dependency test.

This appeal concerns priority for statutory accident benefits under Ontario's no-fault automobile insurance regime after a claimant declined optional rental-counter coverage and was injured in a single-vehicle accident.

The core issue was whether the insurer had a sufficient nexus to the claimant to qualify as an insurer obliged to respond under s. 268 of the Insurance Act and the inter-insurer priority framework.

The Court accepted the appellate reasons below that the arbitrator erred in excluding the insurer from the statutory scheme.

The appeal was allowed and costs were awarded to the appellant.