Suzanne Courtlander

The appellants appealed a trial judge's finding that they were engaged in a joint venture involving repeated and dangerous violations of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly instructed herself on the law of joint venture tort liability and that her finding was reasonable on the evidence.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the respondent insurer.

The appellant insurer appealed a declaration that it was the first insurer to respond to tort claims arising from a single-vehicle accident involving a rented vehicle.

The renter, who was a passenger at the time, sued the rental company and the uninsured driver.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the renter's standard automobile policy was not 'available' to respond to claims against the owner and driver of the rented vehicle, as the policy only provided coverage for liability asserted against the renter.

The respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an uninsured driver who was being pursued by police.

She sued the uninsured driver and her own insurer under the uninsured coverage provisions of her policy, but did not sue the police or municipality.

The insurer brought a third-party claim against the police and municipality, and argued it was not liable to pay the respondent because she failed to sue the insured joint tortfeasors.

The Court of Appeal held that an injured insured is not required to sue insured potential joint tortfeasors to access uninsured coverage, and is only disentitled if the joint tortfeasor's insurer admits liability to pay or the insured obtains judgment against them.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an uninsured driver who was fleeing police.

The plaintiff sued the uninsured driver and her own insurer under the uninsured coverage provisions of her policy, but did not sue the police or municipality.

The insurer brought a third-party claim against the police and municipality, arguing that the plaintiff was disentitled from uninsured coverage because she failed to sue the insured joint tortfeasors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's appeal, holding that the phrase 'entitled to recover' in the Uninsured Automobile Coverage Schedule means 'entitled to recover in fact', and an injured insured is not required to sue potential joint tortfeasors to access their uninsured coverage.

The insured was injured in a motor vehicle accident and was determined by a Designated Assessment Centre to have suffered a catastrophic impairment.

The insurer disputed this finding, initiated mediation, and after mediation failed, commenced a court action for a declaration that the insured was not catastrophically impaired.

The motion judge struck the insurer's claim, finding that the Insurance Act provides a complete code for dispute resolution that does not permit an insurer to initiate a court proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's appeal, confirming that the statutory scheme requires the insured to initiate court or arbitration proceedings to enforce a disputed catastrophic impairment finding, while protecting the insurer by allowing it to pay only its last settlement offer pending resolution.

The respondents settled a personal injury claim arising from a bar fight and subsequently brought an action against the appellant for contribution and indemnity under the Negligence Act.

The trial judge found the appellant 80% liable and ordered him to pay $380,000.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the finding of liability but held that the trial judge erred in apportioning fault without regard to the findings in the first trial.

The Court reduced the appellant's contribution to $162,555.50 to ensure the respondents did not obtain a better result in the second action than they could have in the first.