Ryan Tinney

The appellants, Trafalgar Insurance and Economical Insurance, appealed an arbitrator's decision in a priority dispute regarding statutory accident benefits.

The arbitrator had found that Arch Insurance was not the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident because the vehicle was not owned or leased by Arch's named insured, despite being mistakenly listed on a fleet schedule.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law in the arbitrator's conclusion that the vehicle did not qualify as a 'described vehicle' under the OPCF 21A endorsement.

A related costs appeal was also dismissed as premature.

The applicant, Ontario, sought a declaration that its insurer, St. Paul, owed a duty to defend it in an underlying class action regarding bail system delays.

Ontario argued St. Paul was estopped from denying coverage due to its delay in communicating its position.

The court found no estoppel, as Ontario controlled its own defence and suffered no prejudice.

On the coverage issue, the court held the true nature of the underlying claims involved harms that were expected from Ontario's policy choices, which fell outside the policy's definition of an 'occurrence' or 'accident'.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Quality Truck Bodyshop Inc., sought summary judgment against Acear Inc. and Scottish & York Insurance Co. Limited for over $300,000 in towing, tear down, and storage fees for a stolen and recovered commercial truck.

The defendants opposed, arguing that granting partial summary judgment would lead to increased costs, delays, and potential inconsistent findings, citing the three-part test from Malik v. Attia.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, agreeing that it was not appropriate given the related ongoing actions and the risk of duplication or inconsistent findings.

This endorsement arises from a case conference in a complex action involving TD Bank and numerous insurance underwriters.

The court addressed the management of three pending discovery motions (defendants' refusals, plaintiff's refusals, and defendants' motion for a second discovery representative) and trial management issues.

The court declined the plaintiff's request to expand their refusals motion, permitted the plaintiff to withdraw their existing refusals motion without prejudice, and vacated the scheduled trial date of September 13, 2021, as the action was not ready.

The court provided specific case management directions for completing discoveries, updating motion materials, and preparing for a future trial date.

In an insurance coverage action, the parties brought three motions regarding discovery refusals and the examination of a second discovery representative.

The judge determined that the motions were within the jurisdiction of a Master and, pursuant to the Toronto Region Consolidated Practice Direction, transferred the motions to a Master for determination.

The judge also ordered a case conference to address procedural deficiencies and ensure the orderly development of the motions for hearing.

Following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiff insurer established that two defendants participated in a scheme to defraud it, the court determined the costs of the action and motion.

The court found that the defendants' deliberate and reprehensible fraudulent conduct, which precipitated the litigation, justified an award of elevated costs.

The plaintiff was awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis fixed at $49,232.53.

The plaintiff insurer brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for fraud and conspiracy arising from a staged motor vehicle accident claim.

The uncontradicted evidence established that two of the defendants orchestrated a scheme to falsely report the driver's identity and submit fraudulent accident benefits and tort claims.

The court granted summary judgment against those two defendants for the amounts paid out by the insurer, but dismissed the motion against the son, finding insufficient evidence of his participation in the fraud.

The court declined to award punitive damages, finding the compensatory damages and prior costs orders sufficient for deterrence.

The appellant's vehicle was towed to the respondent's auto centre following an accident.

The appellant signed a blank work order but subsequently requested his vehicle back, refusing to authorize repairs.

The respondent proceeded with repairs based on an estimate provided by the appellant's insurer and refused to release the vehicle.

The Small Claims Court awarded the respondent the cost of repairs.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the judgment, finding that the respondent failed to comply with the strict estimate and authorization requirements of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, and that it would be inequitable to require the appellant to pay for unauthorized repairs.

The moving party defendant, Dufferin, brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to correct the names of John Doe defendants to three proposed defendants under the doctrine of misnomer.

The court found that a defendant has standing to bring a misnomer motion.

The court granted the motion with respect to two proposed defendants (TIL and TIES), finding that the 'litigating finger' pointed at them and they would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.

However, the court dismissed the motion with respect to the third proposed defendant (TDI), finding that although the 'litigating finger' pointed at them, they would suffer non-compensable prejudice due to significant delay and lack of notice, and the moving party failed to show reasonable due diligence under the discoverability principle.