Peter Yoo

The appellant RSA appealed a motion judge's decision regarding insurance policy priority following a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff was struck by a vehicle owned by D'Souza and driven by Lamoureux.

The central issue was whether the plaintiff's OPCF 44R underinsured motorist endorsement or D'Souza's personal umbrella liability policy (PLUP) would respond after the primary automobile policy limits were exhausted.

The motion judge determined that the OPCF 44R took priority over the PLUP, that RSA could not deduct the PLUP limits from its OPCF 44R payments, and that RSA could not issue a third-party claim against Certas or subrogate against the defendants.

The Court of Appeal upheld all of these determinations.

The court considered a motion by the Crown in Right of Ontario (on behalf of the OPP) to dismiss all claims against it for lack of notice under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, and a cross-motion by Certas Home and Auto Insurance to compel further discovery.

The court struck the plaintiff’s claim against the Crown for lack of notice but allowed Certas’ crossclaim to continue, holding that the statutory notice requirement does not apply to crossclaims.

The court also ordered Constable Khabra to re-attend for discovery to answer questions arising from undertakings, and addressed the requirements for Crown witness designation.

Costs were fixed in favour of Certas.

Following a jury trial in a motor vehicle personal injury action where the plaintiff recovered no damages and the action was dismissed, the court determined the defendants’ entitlement to costs.

The defendants sought significant costs awards, including substantial indemnity costs based on an unaccepted settlement offer.

The court held that Rule 49.10 did not apply because the plaintiff obtained no judgment.

Applying s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court confirmed that successful parties are generally entitled to costs but emphasized that awards must be fair and reasonable.

The requested amounts were found excessive, and the court fixed reduced partial indemnity costs payable by the plaintiff to each defendant.

The court issued a consent order setting the timetable for the parties to deliver their costs submissions.

The co-defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The plaintiff alleged negligence by the drivers of two vehicles ahead of him, asserting that their actions in slowing and stopping after police intervention caused the collision.

The court reviewed police reports, discovery transcripts, and documentary evidence and held that the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of negligence that applies to a driver who rear-ends another vehicle.

The evidence established that the plaintiff was following too closely and failed to maintain proper vigilance and control.

The court concluded that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims and cross-claims.