S. Sieger

Following a summary judgment motion with divided success regarding unidentified motorist coverage, both parties sought costs.

The defendant was successful in dismissing the claim under the OPCF 44R endorsement, while the plaintiff successfully resisted the dismissal of the standard coverage claim under the OAP.

Considering the divided success and the factors under Rule 57.01, the court ordered that each party bear its own costs.

The insurer moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claims for unidentified motorist coverage following a single‑vehicle collision where the plaintiff alleged she swerved to avoid an unknown vehicle.

The insurer argued there was no corroborative evidence required under the OPCF 44R Family Protection Endorsement and that the plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed entirely.

The court held that statements repeated by ambulance personnel, hospital staff, and police did not constitute independent witness evidence and that there was no physical evidence indicating the involvement of another vehicle.

Partial summary judgment was granted dismissing the plaintiff’s OPCF 44R claim for excess coverage.

However, the court found that the standard unidentified motorist coverage under the Ontario Automobile Policy did not require corroboration and that credibility issues regarding the alleged unidentified vehicle required a trial.

The defendant insurer brought a motion to strike part of a statement of claim that pleaded the defendant’s revenue and assets in support of a claim for punitive damages arising from the alleged wrongful cancellation of a life insurance policy.

The court considered Rules 25.06(1) and 25.11(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Applying the principles from Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., the court held that a defendant’s financial circumstances are only relevant to punitive damages in limited circumstances, none of which were pleaded.

Because no link was alleged between the defendant’s financial strength and the alleged misconduct, the pleading was irrelevant and risked expanding discovery unnecessarily.

The impugned sentence was therefore struck as frivolous and vexatious.