Tim Gillibrand

The applicants, unit owners in the respondent condominium corporation, brought an application for an oppression remedy, alleging that the corporation's representatives engaged in coercive and abusive behaviour regarding noise complaints, repair issues, balcony storage, and the rejection of a board nomination.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the conduct of both parties was less than ideal, the respondent's actions did not meet the legal test for oppression and were a valid exercise of balancing communal interests with private rights.

The defendants, directors and officers of a condominium corporation, brought a motion to strike the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim.

The plaintiff's claim alleged various criminal acts and sought millions in damages, stemming from his belief that an electrical room beneath his unit emitted harmful electromagnetic waves.

The court found the statement of claim to be fatally flawed, lacking material facts, and essentially drafted as a criminal information.

The motion was granted, and the statement of claim was struck without leave to amend, with costs awarded to the defendants.

Allstate appealed an insurance arbitrator's decision holding it responsible for paying statutory accident benefits to a claimant.

The arbitrator found that Allstate failed to notify Wawanesa of a priority dispute within 90 days of receiving a completed application, and failed to satisfy the test for late notice.

Allstate argued the 90-day period had not commenced because the application was signed by the claimant's aunt, not the claimant.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator correctly interpreted 'signed application' to include signatures by non-claimants, and reasonably concluded that Allstate had sufficient information to commence its priority investigation but failed to act diligently.

Belair Insurance Company appealed an arbitrator's decision that found it 100% at fault for indemnifying State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for statutory accident benefits under a loss transfer dispute.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the arbitrator's interpretation of the Fault Determination Rules, specifically rules 12(5) and 13(2), under a reasonableness standard.

The arbitrator had concluded that Rule 13(2) did not apply to incidents involving vehicles travelling in opposite directions in adjacent lanes at an uncontrolled intersection, as such scenarios were covered by Rule 12(5).

The court upheld the arbitrator's interpretation, finding it reasonable and consistent with the legislative scheme's purpose of providing an expedient method for fault determination among insurers.

The appeal was dismissed.