INTRODUCTION

[1] The plaintiffs bring this action for damages suffered as a result of a motor vehicle accident involving an automobile, a 1990 BMW 535i (“BMW”), which is registered in the name of the defendant Craig Pollard (“Pollard”), was insured by the Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (“Wawanesa”), and was operated by the defendant Shawn Rowe (“Rowe”). The defendant Certas Direct Insurance Company (“Certas”) insured the plaintiffs’ automobile at the time of the accident.

[2] Pollard submits that he never owned the BMW nor has he ever applied to Wawanesa for automobile insurance. Pollard submits that ownership of the BMW was placed in his name as a result of his driver’s licence and other identification being stolen. Accordingly, Pollard brings this motion for summary judgment for a declaration that he is not the owner of the BMW. The plaintiffs and Certas submit that a motion for summary judgment is not suitable given that not all of the available evidence has been put before this court.

[3] For the reasons, described below, I have granted Pollard’s motion for summary judgment.

ISSUES

[4] The following issues are raised by the parties:

(1) Is a motion for summary judgment appropriate in these circumstances?

(2) Was Pollard the owner of the BMW?

ISSUE #1: IS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPROPRIATE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES?

[5] If used appropriately, a motion for summary judgment serves to promote access to justice. Perhaps the most significant consequence of the amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, that came into effect in 2010 is that a “full appreciation” of the evidence is no longer necessary in order to determine a motion for summary judgment on its merits. The question now is whether the court’s appreciation of the evidence is sufficient to rule on the merits of a motion fairly and justly without a trial: see Sweda Farms Ltd. v. Egg Farmers of Ontario, 2014 ONSC 1200, at para. 34, aff’d 2014 ONCA 878, leave to appeal dismissed, [2015] S.C.C.A. No. 97. In Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, the Supreme Court of Canada stated at para. 49:

There will be no genuine issue requiring a trial when the judge is able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits on a motion for summary judgment. This will be the case when the process (1) allows the judge to make the necessary findings of fact, (2) allows the judge to apply the law to the facts, and (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result.

[6] In response to affidavit material or other evidence supporting a motion for summary judgment, a responding party may not rest solely on the allegations or denials in the party’s pleadings, but must set out, in affidavit material or other evidence, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial: see Rule 20.02(2). Each side must “put its best foot forward” with respect to the existence or non-existence of material issues to be tried: see Papaschase Indian Band No. 136 v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 SCC 14, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 372, at para. 11. A court is entitled to assume that the record contains all the evidence that the parties would present if the matter proceeded to trial: see Aronowicz v. EMTWO Properties Inc., 2010 ONCA 96, 98 O.R. (3d) 641, at paras. 17-19.

[7] A court may exercise any of the following powers for the purpose of determining whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial, unless it is in the interest of justice for such powers to be exercised only at a trial:

Weigh the evidence.
Evaluate the credibility of a deponent.
Draw any reasonable inference from the evidence.
Order that oral evidence be presented by one or more parties for the purposes of exercising the above powers: see Rules 20.04(2.1) and 20.04(2.2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

[8] A great deal of evidence has been filed by the parties. Pollard filed the following affidavit evidence: (1) Affidavit of Craig Pollard, sworn October 16, 2015; (2) Affidavits of Ryan D. Truax, sworn October 30, 2015 and April 4, 2016; (3) Affidavit of Boris Bolshan, sworn October 23, 2015; and (4) Affidavit of Mark Campbell, sworn October 27, 2015. The Plaintiffs filed the Affidavit of Aryan Kamyab, sworn November 17, 2015. Certas delivered the following affidavits: (1) Affidavit of Troy Asselin, sworn November 24, 2015; and (2) Affidavit of Stephanie Leclair, sworn November 24, 2015. Bolshan and Campbell were cross-examined on their affidavits on May 19, 2016. Pollard was cross-examined on his affidavit on July 20, 2016.

[9] Additional evidence, such as the evidence of Shawn Rowe (who did not appear) or Farkhad Agayev (to whom the BMW was released after being found abandoned and towed in April 2010), and a copy of the signed application submitted to Wawanesa and bill of sale issued by 1735649 Ontario Inc. (the corporation that became the registered owner of the BMW in September 2009), might have been helpful, if available. However, I am satisfied that the question of whether Pollard owned the BMW does not raise a genuine issue requiring a trial as I find that I am able to make a fair and just determination of the motion for summary judgment in these circumstances.

ISSUE #2: WAS POLLARD THE OWNER OF THE BMW?

[10] Subsection 192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”), makes the owner of a motor vehicle that is negligently operated liable for damages sustained by another person. It states:

The owner of a motor vehicle or street car is liable for loss or damage sustained by any person by reason of negligence in the operation of the motor vehicle or street car on a highway, unless the motor vehicle or street car was without the owner’s consent in the possession of some person other than the owner or the owner’s chauffeur.

[11] “Owner” is not defined under the Act.

[12] Proof of ownership registration is treated as proof of ownership unless the contrary is shown: see Mazur v. Elias Estate (2005), 2005 11390 (ON CA), 75 O.R. (3d) 299 (C.A.), at para. 6.

Ownership Registration

[13] The motor vehicle accident occurred on May 30, 2010. A plate history record search with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) shows that Pollard was the registered owner of the BMW since May 20, 2010.

[14] Pollard submits that the presumption that Pollard is the owner of the BMW is rebutted for the following reasons:

(1) Pollard’s wallet and driver’s licence were stolen and used to purchase the BMW and an automobile insurance policy from Wawanesa;

(2) Pollard did not pay for the purchase of the BMW or otherwise participate in its purchase;

(3) Pollard did not apply, or pay, for the Wawanesa insurance policy; and

(4) Given that the BMW was insured at the time of the motor vehicle accident, there is no pecuniary reason for Pollard to deny ownership.

Pollard’s Stolen Identity

[15] Pollard is 44 years old. He lives in Newmarket, Ontario. He has been diagnosed with anxiety, depression and bipolar disorder. He takes medication to treat these conditions. Pollard’s affidavit evidence is as follows:

During the year 2010, I resided at a number of different addresses. For a brief period, I was a resident of a rooming house located at [Address 1][^1], Newmarket. I believe that I resided at this address in early 2010. There were between 8 and 10 other individuals residing at this address during my residence there.

Following my residence at [Address 1], Newmarket, I was a resident of a basement apartment at a house located at [Address 2], Newmarket.

During my time at both addresses, I was a victim of two break and enters that resulted in the theft of some of my personal property. In particular, my wallet and its contents were stolen on both occasions. I did not report the thefts to the police at the time.…

My stolen wallet was never recovered and I have no information as to who was responsible for its theft.…

On February 4, 2011, I received an invoice from the Highway 407 for expenses incurred between the billing period of January 5 and February 4, 2011. I did not own or drive any vehicle during this time frame. I believed the invoice was an administrative error and ignored it.

Shortly before August 2011, after receiving this bill I was contacted by a representative of The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company who inquired as to the status of a “claim”. I advised them that I did not own or drive a vehicle and did not hear back.

In or about early August 2011, I purchased a 2001 Pontiac Sunfire and attended the Ministry of Transportation to have it registered. I was advised by a representative of the MTO that my Pontiac Sunfire could not be registered. I was further advised that the reason for the MTO’s refusal was that a 1990 BMW 535 … had been registered under my name and that a number of parking tickets relating to the BMW remained unpaid.

During my attendance at the MTO, I was also advised that the BMW had been involved in a motor vehicle accident on May 30, 2010. This was the first time I became aware of the motor vehicle accident on May 30, 2010, that is the subject of this action. I was further advised at that time that the BMW was insured by a policy of insurance issued by The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company.

After learning of the above … on August 16. 2011, I attended the York Regional Police to report that my identification had previously been stolen.…

I was not involved in the motor vehicle accident of May 30, 2010.

I have no knowledge whatsoever with respect to the circumstances of the motor vehicle accident of May 30, 2010.

I have never met or been in contact with the defendant, Shawn Rowe. I have no knowledge or information with respect to him.

[16] On cross-examination, Pollard clarified that he had lived at [Address 1] for between nine to eleven months, followed by about eleven months at [Address 3], Newmarket, and then about two months at [Address 2], Newmarket.

[17] As noted above, Pollard’s affidavit evidence is that he became aware that he was the registered owner of the BMW in August 2011, after being told that he could not register the purchase of a 2001 Pontiac Sunfire in his name because of outstanding financial charges related to the BMW. Shortly thereafter, Pollard went to the York Regional Police to report that his identification had been stolen.

[18] A York Regional Police report, prepared by P.C. Joshua Teresinski, dated August 16, 2011, states:

On August 16, 2011, the complainant, Craig POLLARD, attended 240 Prospect Street, in the Town of Newmarket, to report his Ontario driver’s licence … lost since June 2010. POLLARD stated an insurance company called Wawanesa advised him a claim has been reported under his name as the registered owner of the vehicle. POLLARD does not have a vehicle plate and only knows it is a black 1998 BMW…. The apparent driver of the BMW at the time of the MVC was an unknown “Shawn ROE”.

POLLARD stated he does not know this person. POLLARD stated he does not have any further info regarding the MVC incident, but wanted to make sure his driver’s licence was reported missing. POLLARD stated last year in June 2010 his old address of [Address 2], Newmarket, his apartment was broken into. No report was made at that time. Police advised POLLARD his drivers [sic] licence will be reported missing as of now. It was his responsibility to report his drivers [sic] licence lost or stolen. POLLARD wanted Police to speak to Andrea at 905- [redacted] regarding the claim. The writer called to speak with Andrea, but there was no answer. The writer left a voice mail for Andrea. The writer will follow-up regarding this incident.

[19] Pollard attended the York Regional Police again on September 13, 2011, after receiving a second Highway 407 bill for the BMW. On this visit, Pollard stated that his identity was stolen in May 2010. A York Regional Police report, prepared by P.C. Christopher Plante, dated September 13, 2011, states:

Sometime around the first two weeks of May 2010, the complainant Craig POLLARD, states that his home was broken into and his identification was stolen; however, this was not reported to YRP until August of 2011.

On 20 May 2010, unknown persons attended an MTO “Service Ontario” location and registered the black BMW mentioned above, into the name of Craig POLLARD. This person was issued proper validation and licence plates BJSF814. According to the PARIS check, the validation of these plates expired on 20 October 2010.

On 04 February 2011 the [complainant], Craig POLLARD, received a 407 bill that covered the billing period from 05 January 2011 – 04 February 2011. The bill was in the amount of $28.32 and had an associated 407 account number of 868-515-267. The complainant indicates he did not own nor drive a vehicle during this time frame.

Shortly after receiving this bill, the complainant began to get phone calls from the Wawanesa Insurance Company with an adjuster asking about the status of “his claim”. Once again the [complainant] indicates he was never in an accident nor did he have a vehicle at the time. The insurance adjuster left a claim number of 497780 and an email address of [email]@wawanesa.com. No further details were made available at the time about what accident occurred and with what vehicle.

On 17 August 2011 the [complainant] finally attended one district headquarters to report that his identification had been stolen during a break an[d] enter that apparently happened in May of 2010. He was living at a different address at the time and the report can be found under incident 11-243966. His documents were added to CPIC as lost/missing. During this exchange he communicated to police that the insurance claim he was receiving calls about was a MVC involving the black BMW and a driver named Shawn ROE.

On 13 September 2011 the [complainant] once again attended one district headquarters to report that he had received a second 407 bill. PC Plante spoke with the male and had a look at the documents. PC Plante does not believe that this was a new 407 bill, rather a second notice from the original bill, now with interest added.

In conclusion, the complainant feels someone has stolen his identity, registered a vehicle in his name and is currently using this vehicle; occasionally on the 407. The complainant cannot get a new licence of his own, register a new car or conduct any business with the MTO because of this outstanding 407 account. Furthermore he cannot obtain insurance for a new vehicle because of this Wawanesa insurance “claim” associated to his name.

[20] As noted above, Pollard’s affidavit evidence is that his wallet and its contents were stolen in 2010 while he resided at a rooming house located at [Address 1], Newmarket and while he resided in a basement apartment at [Address 2], Newmarket. He reported these thefts to the York Regional Police on August 16, 2011.

[21] The records from the York Regional Police file shows that Pollard initially reported in August 2011 that his wallet and driver’s licence were stolen in June 2010 – after the BMW was registered in his name. One month later, after he received a further invoice from Highway 407 in respect of the BMW, Pollard returned to the York Regional Police. Their notes show that Pollard reported that this theft occurred in the first two weeks of May 2010. Pollard conceded that he was “not good with dates.”

[22] On cross-examination, Pollard explained that his basement apartment was located at [Address 2], Newmarket. When asked about the circumstances of the theft, Pollard stated at Questions 204-205:

Q: Was there evidence of other – what was the evidence of the break and enter?

A: My front door had been ripped right off its hinges. I come down … the stairs to – because there’s a basement apartment, found my other door propped open, pried open and all my belongings all scattered all over the floor, all my personal information from my files gone through.

Q: Okay, and why isn’t it that you didn’t report the break and enter when it happened?

A: Because I was actually not allowed to be there at the time because I was evicted from the place at the time. I was not allowed on the property at the time. I went with my parents … and this is when we noticed it. My mom also worked for York Police headquarters.

[23] On cross-examination, Pollard candidly stated that he could not remember when he realized that his identification and driver’s licence were stolen: see Questions 198-202.

The Purchase of the BMW

[24] Pollard’s unchallenged affidavit evidence is that he has “never driven, purchased, or registered a BMW with the MTO.”

[25] 1735649 Ontario Inc. (“173”) became the registered owner of the BMW on September 22, 2009: see the VIN History report prepared by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Exhibit I to the Affidavit of Aryan Kamyab.

[26] A report prepared by P.C. Christopher Plante of York Regional Police, appended as Exhibit “A” to the affidavit of Craig Pollard, states:

On 20 November 2009, a male party identified in this report as [Farkhad Agayev], was traffic-stopped near John Street and Leslie Street in the Town of Markham. He was driving a silver four-door Infinity with dealer plates 735DKM. He was issued a ticket for failing to produce insurance card and street checked for being a known offender. During this exchange he stated to the officer that he owns a garage near Dufferin Street and Finch Ave in Toronto.

On 22 April 2010 police responded to a report of an abandoned vehicle infront [sic] of 536 Bert Budd Ave, in the Town of Newmarket. The vehicle was a black BMW bearing one licence plate, the same as above: 735DKM; this is a dealer plate. As a result of this incident, the BMW was towed to Elliot’s and the plate was seized and returned to the MTO as it did not belong on the vehicle. At the time of this call, the black BMW was registered to an Ontario Inc number 1735649 and an address of 1104-605 Finch Avenue West, Toronto.…

On 27 April 2010, the subject Farkhad AGAYEV attended Elliot’s towing and the black BMW was released to him.… As previously mentioned the plates were not attached as they had been returned to the MTO. [Emphasis added.]

[27] A copy of the alleged sale agreement between 173 and Pollard was not provided to this court. Further, there was no evidence from Farkhad Agayev filed with this court.

The Registration of the BMW in Pollard’s Name

[28] When a dealer, such as 173, seeks to register the transfer of ownership of an automobile, the MTO does not require proof of the purchaser’s identity. The Ministry only requires the name, address and driver’s licence number of the person to whom the automobile is being transferred: see the Affidavit of Ryan D. Truax, sworn April 4, 2016.

[29] Pollard became the registered owner of the BMW on May 20, 2010. His registered address is shown as [Address 4], Newmarket. The prior registered owner was 173. At the time of the registration under Pollard’s name, the odometer reading for the BMW was 390,000 kilometres: see the VIN History report prepared by the MTO, Exhibit I to the Affidavit of Aryan Kamyab.

The Purchase of the Wawanesa Automobile Insurance Policy

[30] Pollard’s affidavit evidence is as follows:

At no time have I ever received any form of documentation from any source, including the MTO or The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, relating to this vehicle being registered in my name….

I have never met or been in contact with Boris Bolshan.

I have never met or been in contact with Mark Campbell of Walkington Insurance.

I have never met or been in contact with any employee or representative of Walkington Insurance.

I have never applied for any form of insurance with The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company.

I have never paid The Wawanesa Mutual Company for any form of insurance.

I did not request or authorize a policy of insurance issued by The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company insuring the BMW.

At no point did I ever receive any documentation from any source relating to the issuance of a policy of insurance to me by The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company.

[31] Mark Campbell resides in Vaughan, Ontario. He is a licenced insurance broker, who owns and manages John S. Walkington Insurance.

[32] Boris Bolshan is a 70-year-old man who immigrated to Canada about 17 years ago and resides in the City of Toronto. Bolshan has primarily functioned as an interpreter of the Russian and Ukrainian languages by helping people who require assistance with insurance, health cards, social insurance numbers and bank accounts. He is now retired. He did not have an office and advertised very little in Russian language newspapers. Bolshan states that people who received his assistance would pay him for his translation services.

[33] Bolshan states that in April 2010, someone who identified himself as Pollard contacted him by telephone. This person sought Bolshan’s help to purchase an automobile policy for the BMW. He spoke to this person for a few minutes. Bolshan does not recall meeting this person. This person did not provide Bolshan with any identification. On cross-examination, Bolshan could not recall whether this person spoke English, nor could he recall any details of their conversation. Bolshan did not know how this person got his name and telephone number. He denied that he told people in the community that he could place insurance for them.

[34] On cross-examination, Bolshan, at Question 89, stated:

Q: So assuming Mr. Pollard speaks English, what would he be paying you for, then, in this situation?

A: No, he not going to pay me if he doesn’t need translation. But I try to be nice to people to – maybe he ask me to speed up, to do something for him. I don’t remember. So I just pass this information to Mr. Campbell.

[35] Bolshan agreed that Pollard would not have paid Bolshan if his translation services were not required. When asked why he did not simply ask Campbell to deal directly with Pollard, Bolshan stated:

You know, I can’t guess, because sometimes people cannot make a call during business hours, they working, and they – maybe I talk to Mr. Pollard or a man after business hours, because – and he ask me to help him, so I try just to be nice to the guy.

[36] On April 29, 2010, at 12:44 a.m., Bolshan sent Campbell an email requesting a quote for automobile insurance. Bolshan’s email states:

Hi Mark Please quote asap: Craig Pollard, 37 years, married, wife unlicenced [driver’s licence number redacted] [Address 2] Newmarket [postal code redacted] [telephone number redacted] G-1993 No accidents, no tickets had insurance, expired 5 years ago 1990BMW 535i 4dr Basic Pleasure, 12000km/year

Boris

[37] Bolshan could not recall whether Campbell sent him a responding email. Bolshan states that he no longer has access to the email account that he used for this correspondence. Bolshan never met Pollard in person. Bolshan states that he only spoke to Pollard by telephone.

[38] Campbell states that he obtained the Vehicle Identification Number for Pollard’s automobile from Bolshan in a subsequent telephone call as it was not included in Bolshan’s email. With this information, Campbell was able to provide Bolshan with an estimate later that same day. Campbell states that Bolshan found the estimate agreeable. However, Bolshan has no recollection of contacting Pollard to seek his approval of the estimate. Campbell completed an application for insurance and sent the signature page to Bolshan. Campbell’s evidence is that Bolshan returned a signed application by fax within one day along with a void cheque so that monthly premium payments could be automatically debited from Pollard’s bank account. Campbell did not bring a copy of the signed application or the void cheque to his cross-examination. Certas requested a copy of this application and the void cheque, which apparently is held by both Campbell and Wawanesa; however, there is no evidence that this material was provided as they were not filed as exhibits on this motion.

[39] Campbell states that Bolshan requested that premiums were to be paid on a monthly basis. Campbell’s staff then requested that the policy be issued. Wawanesa issued an automobile policy to Pollard for a one-year period commencing April 30, 2010. Within 48 hours, Campbell’s office received cash that covered the premiums for two months. This cash was left at the front desk of Campbell’s office. Campbell has no information regarding the identity of the individual who delivered the payment to his office. Campbell placed that cash into his trust account and issued a cheque to Wawanesa.

[40] Campbell states that Bolshan has referred about 10 to 15 clients to him since 2006. He states that he has never paid a referral fee to Bolshan or provided him with any other form of consideration for these referrals. Bolshan confirmed that Campbell has never paid him for referrals. Campbell was unaware of why Bolshan referred clients to him.

[41] Although not mentioned in his affidavit, on cross-examination Campbell recalled that his personal assistant received a telephone call in mid-May 2010, from someone who identified himself as Pollard. Campbell’s office has no written record of this telephone call. Campbell said he was told that this person had received a greeting letter from Campbell thanking him for his business. Campbell said his office did not keep a copy of this letter. However, this person said he did not have a BMW and did not know “what our greeting letter really was all about, but he was trying to get to the bottom of it.” There is no written record of this telephone call. As a result, Campbell’s office sent a cancellation form for Pollard’s signature. This form was sent to the address provided by Bolshan, above; however, the form was never returned to Campbell. There was no covering letter sent by Campbell’s office with the form. The cancellation form was not produced by Campbell or Wawanesa.

[42] Campbell states that he first learned in June 2010 that the policy had been terminated by Wawanesa for non-payment. Campbell states that he has never met or been in contact with Pollard or Rowe. He has no information regarding the theft of Pollard’s identity.

Conclusions

[43] Pollard, Bolshan and Campbell had repeated difficulty recalling the events, or matters related to those events, about which they have provided sworn affidavit evidence. Campbell was particularly rude and defensive when asked to explain apparent inconsistencies and gaps between his affidavit and his oral evidence: see Questions 351, 418-421.

[44] However, Pollard’s evidence that he never purchased or owned the BMW and that he never applied or paid for insurance from Wawanesa in respect of the BMW is clear and unambiguous. There is no evidence that contradicts Pollard’s evidence that he never purchased, owned or registered the BMW.

[45] Further, I accept that Pollard has never met or been in contact with Bolshan or Campbell. I also accept his evidence that he never requested, applied for, authorized or paid for any insurance policy from Wawanesa. The evidence of Bolshan and Campbell is that they provided insurance for a person that they thought was Pollard, even though they admit that they never met Pollard. While Pollard’s recollection of events, particularly dates, could have been stronger, I preferred his evidence over that of Bolshan and Campbell. I find that Pollard never had any contact with Bolshan. I also find that Pollard never sought Bolshan’s translation assistance. There is no evidence that Pollard speaks any language other than English. I do not accept that Bolshan’s alternate theory that being “nice to the guy,” he was an intermediary for Pollard with Campbell. Pollard did not need an intermediary. Pollard was able to deal directly with other insurance agents to obtain quotes and coverage for the 2001 Pontiac Sunfire that he subsequently purchased and insured without Bolshan’s assistance: see Questions 224-227, and the AutoPlus Gold Report attached as Exhibit “B” of the Affidavit of Stephanie Leclair, which shows that the Gore Mutual Insurance Company insured Pollard’s 2001 Pontiac Sunfire in September 2011 and subsequently another automobile in 2012.

[46] Further, I find it remarkable that an automobile insurance policy was issued by an insurance broker to a new client (1) without meeting the client; (2) who did not provide a copy of the driver’s licence and bill of sale for the automobile to be insured; and (3) who paid the premium in cash. I would have thought that the “know your client” rules in the insurance industry, which I assume exist, impose a higher standard of care on insurance agents and brokers.

[47] Finally, I accept Pollard’s submission that the other parties have not explained why, as a practical matter, Pollard would deny ownership of the BMW if he had, as they suggest, purchased the BMW from 173 and a policy of insurance from Wawanesa.

[48] For the above reasons, I find that Pollard has discharged the burden of proving that he did not own the BMW despite the fact that ownership of that automobile was registered in his name.

CONCLUSIONS

[49] I find that Pollard never owned the BMW. Accordingly, I grant Pollard’s motion for summary judgment.

[50] Given the parties’ agreement, I hereby award costs in the amount of $22,000 to Pollard.

Mr. Justice M. D. Faieta

Released: October 28, 2016

CITATION: Azimi v. Rowe, 2016 ONSC 6471

COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-451848

DATE: 2016

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

MEHRDAD AZIMI and NIMA KOMYZI

Plaintiffs

– and –

SHAWN ROWE, CRAIG POLLARD, and CERTAS DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendants

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr. Justice M. D. Faieta

Released: October 28, 2016

[^1]: For privacy reasons, Pollard’s addresses, telephone number and driver’s licence number have been redacted throughout this decision.

Azimi v. Rowe, 2016 ONSC 6471

Case Summary

INTRODUCTION

ISSUES

ISSUE #1: IS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPROPRIATE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES?

ISSUE #2: WAS POLLARD THE OWNER OF THE BMW?

Ownership Registration

Pollard’s Stolen Identity

The Purchase of the BMW

The Registration of the BMW in Pollard’s Name

The Purchase of the Wawanesa Automobile Insurance Policy

Conclusions

CONCLUSIONS

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Financial Outcomes

Issues

Statutory Provisions 2

Legal Tests 1

Legislation 2