Stephen Firestone

The plaintiffs brought a civil action for damages after the defendant’s dogs attacked and bit one of the plaintiffs while the couple was walking their dog.

The action proceeded as an undefended trial after the defendant failed to file a statement of defence.

The court accepted the plaintiffs’ evidence and found liability established.

Damages were assessed for general damages, loss of income, future scar revision surgery, and out‑of‑pocket expenses, as well as housekeeping and a derivative claim under s. 60 of the Family Law Act.

Judgment was granted for a total of $61,559.40 including costs and pre‑judgment interest.

The plaintiffs were injured in a motor vehicle accident in California and settled with the at-fault driver for the policy limits.

They then sued their own insurer in Ontario under the OPCF 44 Family Protection Coverage endorsement for their excess losses.

The insurer argued that Ontario's no-fault provisions (ss. 267.1 and 267.2 of the Insurance Act) applied to limit the claim, characterizing them as issues of 'quantum' under the policy.

The Court of Appeal held that the statutory provisions relate to 'liability', not 'quantum', and therefore the substantive law of California governed the liability issues.

The insurer's appeal was dismissed.