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.

A self-represented litigant appealed eight decisions from the Superior Court of Justice dismissing his actions as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and a vexatious litigant designation under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant's claims related to complaints about interactions with government agencies, law enforcement, and mental health and medical personnel spanning multiple years and incidents.

The Court of Appeal upheld all dismissals, finding the pleadings fell far short of procedural requirements, failed to advance any justiciable cause of action, and exhibited hallmarks of vexatious proceedings including rambling discourse, grandiose damage claims, and repetitious allegations across multiple proceedings.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing held by telephone conference call.

The respondents attended.

As the Notice of Hearing warned that failure to attend could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned, the Tribunal dismissed the application on that basis.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident involving an uninsured motorist.

She sued her former solicitor for failing to commence an action against the tortfeasor within the limitation period.

She later sought to amend her statement of claim to add a direct action against her insurer.

The master refused the amendment, finding the claim was statute-barred.

The solicitor appealed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the limitation period for a direct action against an insurer begins when the insured knew or ought to have known the tortfeasor was uninsured, which in this case was more than two years before the proposed amendment.