Peter Duda

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident while a passenger in a taxi.

The taxi collided with a vehicle owned by the defendant mother and driven by her unlicensed, intoxicated son.

The mother's insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's uninsured coverage claims, arguing the son had implied consent to drive.

The mother brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action against her, arguing her son drove without consent.

The court found the mother had explicitly forbidden her son from driving her vehicle years prior, kept the keys in their usual place, and had no reason to suspect he would take the car while she was on vacation.

The court concluded the son did not have implied consent, dismissing the action against the mother and dismissing the insurer's motion.

The applicant sought a declaration of entitlement to insurance coverage after her insurer denied her claim.

The applicant had permitted her common-law spouse, whose license had been suspended for 20 years, to drive her vehicle after she felt too ill to continue driving.

The spouse subsequently caused an accident.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's decision to let her unlicensed and incapable spouse drive was unreasonable and not born of necessity.

Consequently, the applicant could not rely on a due diligence defence or obtain relief from forfeiture under the Courts of Justice Act.