3 total
Action against unauthorized driver of rented vehicle dismissed under s. 263 of the Insurance Act.
The plaintiffs, an exotic car rental company, sued the renter and an unauthorized driver after a rented Aston Martin was destroyed in a collision.
The unauthorized driver's insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action against the driver, relying on the no-fault property damage regime under s. 263 of the Insurance Act.
The plaintiffs also moved for summary judgment against the renter for breach of contract.
The court granted the insurer's motion, dismissing the action against the driver because s. 263(5)(a) strictly bars property damage claims against anyone other than the insured's own insurer.
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion against the renter, finding that s. 263(5)(a.1) requires a finding of fault or negligence, which involved genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial.
Court refused to enforce settlement due to risk of clear injustice.
The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce minutes of settlement reached in a wrongful dismissal action.
After signing the settlement, the defendant discovered evidence suggesting the plaintiff had performed work for competitors during employment using company resources and had attempted to delete related computer files.
The defendant repudiated the settlement and commenced its own action for damages.
The court held that although a settlement existed, it should not be enforced where enforcement would create a real risk of clear injustice.
Given newly discovered evidence of alleged misconduct that was not reasonably discoverable prior to settlement, the motion to enforce the settlement was dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; trial judge properly granted partial relief from forfeiture where retaining full instalments was unconscionable.
The appellants appealed a trial judgment granting the respondents partial relief from forfeiture.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the forfeiture clause was penal and that retaining the full amount of the instalments would be unconscionable given the disparity with the value of the work performed.
Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondents in the amount of $10,000.
