Vicki Edgar

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for damages arising from a motorcycle accident allegedly caused by an unidentified vehicle.

The insurer argued the claim was statute-barred due to the plaintiff's failure to report the accident to the police or the insurer within the prescribed time limits, and that the accident could not have occurred as described.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief from forfeiture, whether the identity of the vehicle was ascertainable with due diligence, and whether the plaintiff is entitled to OPCF 44R coverage.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident injured in a bus accident in New York State, brought a motion to affirm the jurisdiction of the Ontario Superior Court.

The defendants, a Michigan trucking company and the estate of its driver, brought a cross-motion to stay the action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

While the court found it had jurisdiction simpliciter based on several connecting factors, it granted the defendants' cross-motion and stayed the action, concluding that New York was the more appropriate forum given that the accident occurred there, New York law applied, and 35 other passengers had already commenced actions in New York.

The plaintiff was severely injured in a single-vehicle rollover accident on a rural gravel road.

She sued the municipality, alleging the accident was caused by the road's poor state of repair, specifically the presence of potholes and loose gravel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the road was in a reasonable state of repair for a rural gravel road and that the potholes did not constitute a state of disrepair.

Furthermore, the court concluded that the accident was caused entirely by the plaintiff's own negligence, including driving at an excessive speed and overcorrecting after encountering an oncoming vehicle.

The court also found that the plaintiff was not wearing her seatbelt, which would have resulted in a 25% reduction in damages for contributory negligence had the municipality been found liable.