Symone Marlowe

The parties settled damages in a motor vehicle accident where a pedestrian was struck.

The defendants brought a motion to vary the usual order of presentation at trial, arguing they bear the onus of disproving negligence under s. 193(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff still bears the burden of proving at least one issue on liability, such as that she was struck by the defendants' vehicle, and therefore there was no basis to depart from the usual order of presentation.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident while a passenger in a taxi.

The taxi collided with a vehicle owned by the defendant mother and driven by her unlicensed, intoxicated son.

The mother's insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's uninsured coverage claims, arguing the son had implied consent to drive.

The mother brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action against her, arguing her son drove without consent.

The court found the mother had explicitly forbidden her son from driving her vehicle years prior, kept the keys in their usual place, and had no reason to suspect he would take the car while she was on vacation.

The court concluded the son did not have implied consent, dismissing the action against the mother and dismissing the insurer's motion.