Paul Omeziri

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the applicants' arbitration claims for accident benefits.

The applicants had repeatedly failed to attend examinations under oath, despite an earlier finding that they were required to do so and an undertaking by their counsel to produce them.

The arbitrator found that the applicants' ongoing refusal to participate in the claims process while continuing to advance their arbitration claims constituted an abuse of process.

The arbitration applications were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a medical benefit of $25,000 for surgery in the United States.

The insurer denied the claim and raised a preliminary issue that the application for arbitration was statute-barred under section 281.1 of the Insurance Act, as it was commenced more than two years after the denial.

The applicant argued that a letter sent to the Commission requesting to add the issue to a previous arbitration satisfied the limitation period or that the insurer waived the limitation period.

The Arbitrator found that the letter did not constitute a valid application for arbitration and that the insurer did not consent to adding the issue or waive the limitation period.

The claim was held to be statute-barred and the application for arbitration was dismissed.

The registered owner of a motor vehicle brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the action against him arising from a pedestrian collision caused by his son while driving the vehicle.

The owner argued that his son operated the vehicle without his consent because the son only held a G1 licence and had been expressly prohibited from driving unaccompanied.

The court considered s. 192 of the Highway Traffic Act and the jurisprudence confirming that owner liability turns on consent to possession, not consent to operation.

Evidence showed the son had his own set of keys, unrestricted access to the vehicle on the family property, and that the vehicle had been purchased for his eventual ownership and use.

The court held that the owner failed to establish that the vehicle was in the son’s possession without consent and that there was at least a genuine issue requiring a trial.