Stan J. Sokol

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident while a passenger in a van driven by a 16-year-old unlicensed driver.

The driver had taken the van, owned by his mother, without her permission while she slept.

In this liability trial, the court found the driver negligent but dismissed the claims against the mother, finding she did not give express or implied consent to possession of the vehicle and was not negligent in securing her keys.

The court also found the plaintiff ought to have known the vehicle was taken without consent, thereby excluding him from uninsured motorist coverage under the mother's insurance policy.

The Minister of Finance, on behalf of the uninsured defendant driver, brought a motion seeking to preclude the co-defendant insurer from relying on a policy exclusion for operating a vehicle without consent.

The moving party argued that because the insurer had previously settled the plaintiff's statutory accident benefits claim, relying on the exclusion in the tort action constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the accident benefits settlement was explicitly without prejudice and did not constitute an admission of liability that would prevent the insurer from defending the tort claim on its merits.

This appeal concerns an arbitrator's decision regarding sanctions for an insurer's improper deflection of a statutory accident benefits (SABs) claim and failure to provide timely notice of dispute.

The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (MVACF) appealed the arbitrator's decision to impose only costs sanctions on TD Insurance, arguing that TD should be permanently liable for the SABs due to its conduct.

The court upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding it reasonable and within jurisdiction, as existing appellate authority supports that a breach of the "Disputes Between Insurers" regulation does not automatically result in permanent liability, especially when another insurer initiated the dispute process within the required timeframe.

Following a successful appeal regarding a late jury notice, the Ministry of Finance sought costs of $7,500 on a partial indemnity basis for both the appeal and the motion below.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded because the issue was novel, or alternatively, that the quantum should be reduced.

The court rejected the novelty argument, noting the issue arose from the respondent's failure to serve a jury notice in time.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable, the court awarded $6,264.40 to the Ministry, payable by a specified date.

The Minister of Finance, representing the defendant Abdirissaq Nor, appealed a Master's order that dismissed their motion to strike a jury notice.

The plaintiff, Michael Leadbetter, had served the jury notice after the close of pleadings without obtaining leave, contrary to Rule 47.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Master, in his decision, effectively granted leave by declining to strike the jury notice, relying on Rules 2.01 and 1.04.

The Superior Court, on appeal, found that the Master erred in law by converting the motion to strike into a de facto motion for leave.

The court clarified that Rules 2.01 and 2.03 provide curative or dispensing powers for non-compliance, but do not grant the authority to provide judicial permission (leave) for a step that requires it.

As no motion for leave was brought by the plaintiff, the Master lacked the power to make the order.

The appeal was allowed, and the Master's order was set aside.

The appeal concerned a preliminary arbitration decision arising from a statutory accident benefits priority dispute under s. 268 of the Insurance Act and O. Reg. 283/95.

The appellant argued that the insurer initiating the dispute was required to conduct a reasonable investigation and give notice to all insurers potentially higher in priority before serving the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

The court held that the wording of s. 3 of the Regulation did not impose a general duty to investigate before giving notice and required notice only to insurers the initiating insurer claims are liable.

The court agreed with the arbitrator’s interpretation that the Regulation does not obligate the first insurer to notify every potentially higher-priority insurer or conduct a full investigation prior to issuing a priority dispute notice.

The arbitrator’s decision was upheld.

A motion was brought to strike a third party claim against the Toronto Transit Commission’s insurer arising from a pedestrian injury caused by an uninsured vehicle while the pedestrian attempted to board a stopped streetcar.

The moving party argued there was no privity of contract with the injured person or the defendant and that declaratory relief was inappropriate.

The court held that potential liability could arise under the statutory accident benefits priority scheme in s. 268(2) of the Insurance Act if the streetcar was "involved in the incident." Accepting the pleaded facts as true, the court found the allegations could support such involvement and therefore disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The third party claim was permitted to proceed and declaratory relief within the action was found appropriate to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund appealed an arbitrator’s decision finding that an injured motorcyclist was not principally dependent on his parents for financial support under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator had concluded that during the 12 months preceding the accident the claimant’s employment income exceeded 51% of his financial needs, applying the dependency framework from Miller v. Safeco and subsequent arbitral jurisprudence.

The appellant argued the arbitrator misapplied the dependency factors and improperly confined the analysis to the year preceding the accident.

The court held that the determination of dependency involved mixed fact and law and was reviewable on a reasonableness standard.

Finding the arbitrator’s use of the 12‑month timeframe and the 51% dependency test reasonable and consistent with established jurisprudence, the court dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their Statement of Claim to add additional defendants, including insurers, and to seek declaratory relief regarding entitlement to statutory accident benefits and uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage following a motor vehicle accident involving an uninsured driver.

The proposed insurers opposed the amendments, arguing that accident benefits claims required prior mediation and that there was insufficient evidence to support entitlement to coverage as dependent relatives under the relevant policies.

The court considered Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and whether the proposed amendments raised triable issues.

It held that there were serious and triable issues regarding potential coverage under the insurance policies and that denying the amendments would be premature.

The court granted leave to amend the Statement of Claim and allowed the proposed insurers to be added as defendants.