Russell William Palin

The Appellants (Hills) appealed a motion judge's refusal to set aside a default judgment obtained by the Respondent (Hiley) on a defendant's claim.

The Appellants had failed to file a defence to the defendant's claim, mistakenly believing their original plaintiff's claim sufficiently addressed the issues.

The court found the motion judge erred by not considering the net effect of the refusal on the interests of justice, as it would foreclose the Appellants' ability to advance their original claim.

The appeal was allowed, the default judgment was set aside, and the Appellants were permitted to file a defence.

No costs were awarded on the appeal due to the Appellants' initial error.

The appellants, initially self-represented, filed a claim in Small Claims Court regarding a kitchen installation.

The respondent filed a defence and a Defendant's Claim.

Believing their original claim served as a defence, the appellants did not file a separate defence to the Defendant's Claim, leading to a default judgment against them.

A motion judge refused to set aside the default judgment.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the default judgment, finding that leaving it in place would effectively foreclose the appellants' ability to advance their original claim, which was contrary to the interests of justice.

The respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an uninsured driver who was being pursued by police.

She sued the uninsured driver and her own insurer under the uninsured coverage provisions of her policy, but did not sue the police or municipality.

The insurer brought a third-party claim against the police and municipality, and argued it was not liable to pay the respondent because she failed to sue the insured joint tortfeasors.

The Court of Appeal held that an injured insured is not required to sue insured potential joint tortfeasors to access uninsured coverage, and is only disentitled if the joint tortfeasor's insurer admits liability to pay or the insured obtains judgment against them.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an uninsured driver who was fleeing police.

The plaintiff sued the uninsured driver and her own insurer under the uninsured coverage provisions of her policy, but did not sue the police or municipality.

The insurer brought a third-party claim against the police and municipality, arguing that the plaintiff was disentitled from uninsured coverage because she failed to sue the insured joint tortfeasors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's appeal, holding that the phrase 'entitled to recover' in the Uninsured Automobile Coverage Schedule means 'entitled to recover in fact', and an injured insured is not required to sue potential joint tortfeasors to access their uninsured coverage.