3 total
Settlement Disclosure Notice found valid; applicant's attempt to rescind settlement 4.5 years later rejected.
The applicant sought to invalidate a Settlement Disclosure Notice (SDN) he signed in 2011, which settled his accident benefits claim for $115,000.
He argued the SDN was defective for failing to distinguish between different periods of Income Replacement Benefits and for lacking required language regarding rescission.
The arbitrator found the SDN valid, noting the applicant was represented by counsel at the time and understood the terms.
The issue of whether the applicant was time-barred from applying for mediation was deemed moot.
Negligence claim against car lot owner survives Rule 21 motion despite stolen vehicle collision.
The defendant car auction company brought a Rule 21.01(1)(b) motion to dismiss a negligence claim arising from injuries caused when a stolen vehicle collided with the plaintiffs’ vehicle ten days after the theft.
The moving party argued that it was not reasonably foreseeable that a thief would negligently cause harm to third parties days after a theft, relying on appellate authority concerning foreseeability in car theft cases.
The court held that, accepting the pleaded facts as true, it was not plain and obvious that the claim was certain to fail because the pleadings alleged circumstances that could support foreseeability, including the possibility that the thief was dangerously driving while evading police.
The court also found the motion premature given the absence of evidentiary context typically available after discovery or trial.
However, several subparagraphs of the amended statement of claim were struck as speculative and lacking material facts.
Bail review denied due to risk of further impaired driving.
The applicant sought a review of a detention order under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being denied bail on the secondary ground.
The charges arose from an alleged impaired driving incident involving a high-speed collision shortly after the applicant had pleaded guilty to a prior “over 80” offence and was subject to a one-year driving prohibition.
The applicant proposed a new release plan involving two sureties, financial pledges, house arrest, and counselling for alcohol-related issues.
The court held that the proposed plan did not sufficiently mitigate the substantial likelihood that the applicant would commit further offences while on release.
The application for bail review was dismissed on the basis that detention remained necessary for the protection and safety of the public.
