Sergio Grillone

The appellants appealed a trial judge's decision to accept expert opinion evidence on Manitoba law, which concluded their claim was barred by a Manitoba Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to accept the unqualified and unopposed expert opinion.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory order made by a Small Claims Court judge setting aside a default judgment.

The Divisional Court noted that while it has jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Procedures Act to review such decisions, it will generally decline to do so where the application is essentially an appeal of an interlocutory order, as the Courts of Justice Act does not permit appeals from interlocutory orders of the Small Claims Court.

The court found no reason to interfere, holding that the Small Claims Court judge acted within his jurisdiction.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant was injured in a three-car collision in 2003.

She commenced an action against one driver in 2005 and later obtained an order to add the other driver and owner as defendants in 2007.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action against the added defendants because the two-year limitation period had expired.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no genuine issue for trial as the appellant had all necessary information to discover her claim against the added defendants by June 2005 at the latest.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision regarding a motor vehicle accident in Manitoba involving two visitors to the province.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that neither party tendered admissible expert evidence on the interpretation of the applicable Manitoba statute.

The court concluded that the proper interpretation of the statute presented a genuine issue for trial, and the motion judge erred in determining it on a summary judgment motion.

The insurer brought a motion to adjourn the arbitration hearing and compel the production of the applicant's pre-accident business records.

The applicant had previously agreed to produce the records but failed to do so, arguing they might be with his accountant and questioning their relevance.

The arbitrator found that the records were relevant to the issue of income replacement benefits and that the applicant was bound by his prior agreement to produce them.

The motion was granted, the hearing was adjourned, and the applicant was ordered to produce the records or confirm their non-existence, as well as pay $150 in costs to the insurer.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that Ontario was forum non conveniens for an action on an insurance policy.

The appellant argued the motions judge failed to consider Articles 68 and 69 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Quebec Code was not relevant to the forum non conveniens analysis in Ontario, as Ontario's jurisdiction derives from its own law.

The Court found no basis to interfere with the motions judge's weighing of the factors, agreeing that the action's connection was almost totally with Quebec.

The insured died from an amniotic fluid embolism during childbirth.

Her husband claimed the accidental death benefit under her life insurance policy.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the death was not an accident and was excluded as a physical illness.

The motions judge found the death was an accident and not an illness.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the expectation test for accidental death does not apply to deaths from natural causes, and that an amniotic fluid embolism is a physical illness within the policy's exclusion clause.