Robert E. Seabrook

The minor plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding as a passenger in a stolen car.

He claimed damages against his mother's automobile insurer under the uninsured motorist provisions of the Ontario Standard Automobile Policy (OAP 1).

The insurer moved to determine whether paragraph 1.8.2 of OAP 1 excluded the claim.

The motion judge found the claim was not excluded.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the second clause of paragraph 1.8.2 refers to an occupant of 'an automobile' rather than 'the automobile' as defined in the policy, thereby excluding coverage for an occupant of any automobile driven without consent.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision denying him further weekly benefits under the SABS-1994.

The appellant received "other disability benefits" for a partial inability to carry on a normal life, but benefits were interrupted for 28 weeks when his condition temporarily improved.

The insurer terminated benefits on the second anniversary of the accident because the appellant did not meet the "complete inability" test.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's ruling that the 104-week transition period refers to calendar weeks, not weeks of benefits paid.

The Delegate also held that the appellant could not qualify for ongoing benefits by meeting the complete inability test at a later date, as the disability must continuously prevent the person from engaging in their ordinary activities from the 104-week mark.

The appellant was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident while a passenger in an uninsured vehicle.

He sought indemnity from the respondent insurer under a policy issued to a man with whom he lived in a de facto parent-child relationship.

The motions judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding the appellant was neither a 'person insured under the contract' under s. 265 of the Insurance Act nor a 'relative' under the OPCF 44 endorsement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the definition of 'insured' in s. 224(1) applies to s. 265, and that 'relative' in the endorsement should be interpreted liberally to include a de facto parent-child relationship, provided dependency is proven at trial.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly disability benefits from the insurer.

The insurer terminated benefits 104 weeks after the accident, arguing the disability test changed from partial inability to complete inability.

The applicant applied for arbitration, arguing the 104-week period should be extended because he was not partially disabled for a portion of that time, and that he later met the complete inability test.

The arbitrator held that the 104-week period runs continuously from the onset of disability, and because the applicant did not meet the complete inability test at the 104-week mark, he was not entitled to further weekly disability benefits.