4 total
Section 263(5) of the Insurance Act does not bar subrogated claims by collision insurers.
The insured's tractor-trailer was damaged in a rear-end collision.
The vehicle was covered by a collision policy from one insurer and a liability policy from another.
The collision insurer paid for the damage and brought a subrogated claim against the liability insurer.
The motion judge held the subrogated claim was barred by section 263(5) of the Insurance Act.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that section 263(5) only bars subrogated claims for payments made under a motor vehicle liability policy.
Because the collision policy was not a motor vehicle liability policy, the subrogated claim was permitted under section 278(1) of the Act.
Limitation period for arbitration did not begin to run because insurer's refusal notice lacked required dispute resolution details.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought supplementary medical and rehabilitation benefits.
The insurer rejected the claims and argued that the applicant was time-barred from proceeding to arbitration because she applied outside the two-year limitation period under section 281(5) of the Insurance Act.
Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Smith v. Co-operators Insurance Company, the arbitrator found that the insurer's notices of refusal did not provide full details of the dispute resolution process as required by section 71 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
Consequently, there was no valid refusal, the limitation period never began to run, and the applicant was permitted to proceed to arbitration.
Insurer's preliminary objection dismissed; applicant's claims for accident benefits were not time-barred.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident involving a streetcar and sought statutory accident benefits.
The insurer argued that the applicant's claims for income replacement benefits and supplementary medical benefits were time-barred under section 281(5) of the Insurance Act and section 72 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The arbitrator found that the insurer's initial communications did not constitute a clear and unequivocal refusal of a crystallized claim for income replacement benefits.
The arbitrator also held that an insurer cannot issue a blanket refusal in advance for future supplementary medical benefits.
The applicant was permitted to proceed to arbitration for her income replacement benefits claim and for supplementary medical benefits claimed after March 20, 1998.
Appeal allowed; sufficiency of a slip-and-fall notice missing exact date and location raises a triable issue.
The appellant slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk and broke her leg.
She faxed a handwritten notice of her claim to the municipality within the seven-day statutory period, but the notice did not specify the exact date or location of the fall.
The municipality successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that the notice was defective under s. 284(5) of the Municipal Act.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a notice does not strictly need to state the time and place if it provides enough information for the municipality to investigate.
Whether the appellant's notice was sufficient raised a genuine issue for trial.
