Stephen Kelly

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to add allegations of fraudulent conveyances and unjust preferences concerning a condominium unit in Toronto.

The plaintiff sought to establish that certain instruments and an underlying alter ego trust created between May and August 2024 were fraudulent conveyances designed to defeat creditors.

The plaintiff was enforcing three Greek judgments totaling approximately 700,000 euros against the defendants.

The court applied the three-part test for certificates of pending litigation and found that the plaintiff established a high probability of success on the underlying action, sufficient evidence of badges of fraud to create a triable issue, and that the balance of convenience favoured issuance of the certificate.

The court granted leave to amend and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits from the insurer, as well as collateral loss of income benefits from National Life.

The insurer deducted the gross amount of the National Life benefits from 80 per cent of the applicant's gross weekly income to calculate her weekly income benefit under Section 12(4)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant disputed this calculation, arguing that only the net after-tax amount of the collateral benefits should be deducted.

The arbitrator agreed with the applicant, finding that deducting the gross amount of taxable collateral benefits would unfairly penalize the applicant and contravene the legislative goal of matching 80 per cent of pre-accident gross income.

The insurer was ordered to calculate the deduction based on the net after-tax amount of the collateral benefits and to pay interest and expenses.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim relating to alleged failure to enforce a subdivision agreement against neighbouring property owners who had deposited fill.

The court considered the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 and the discoverability principles.

The court held that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the material facts giving rise to the claim by 2007 and therefore the 2012 action was commenced well outside the limitation period.

The court also found that the municipality owed no duty to the plaintiff to commence proceedings against the neighbouring property owners and had reasonably exercised its discretion in declining to do so.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action.

An insurer appealed a loss transfer arbitration decision that apportioned fault for a snowmobile–automobile collision under the Insurance Act regime.

The arbitrator determined that the Fault Determination Rules did not apply to the circumstances and instead assessed liability using ordinary negligence principles, finding the snowmobile operator primarily responsible and the automobile driver partially responsible.

On appeal, the insurer argued the arbitrator erred in law by concluding the collision fell outside the regulatory fault rules.

The court held that the arbitrator’s determination involved questions of mixed fact and law and was therefore outside the limited right of appeal restricted to questions of law.

Applying a deferential standard of reasonableness, the court found no reviewable error and upheld the arbitration award.

The appellant insurer appealed an order holding it responsible for the first $200,000 of damages payable to the plaintiffs, who were intentionally struck and injured by the insured's vehicle.

The insurer argued it was not obliged to indemnify the insured due to his intentional criminal act under s. 118 of the Insurance Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that ss. 258(1) and (4) of the Act create an absolute liability on the part of the insurer toward innocent third parties, which is not dependent on the insured's right to indemnity.

The insured was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits from her automobile insurer, as well as disability benefits from her employer's group plan.

The automobile insurer reduced her weekly income benefits by the gross amount of her disability benefits.

The insured argued that only the net after-tax amount should be deducted.

An arbitrator agreed with the insured, finding that deducting the gross amount was unfair.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate rescinded the arbitration order, holding that the plain language of section 12(4)(b) of the Schedule requires the deduction of the full amount of the disability benefits received by or available to the insured, regardless of the tax consequences.

The applicant sought weekly, death, and funeral benefits on behalf of his deceased father, who was involved in two minor motor vehicle accidents in December 1992 and subsequently experienced a rapid decline in health, dying in June 1993.

The arbitrator found that while the accidents caused an initial inability to perform essential tasks, entitling the estate to weekly benefits for a limited period, they did not directly or indirectly cause the death.

Medical evidence suggested an underlying malignancy was the likely cause of the rapid deterioration and death.

Claims for death benefits, funeral expenses, and a special award were dismissed, but the applicant was awarded expenses of the arbitration.