William G. Scott

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding the reasons of the lower court judge persuasive.

The respondent was awarded costs fixed at $9,000.

Following an appeal, the court received written submissions regarding costs.

The appellants made no submissions on the quantum of costs.

The court fixed the costs at $13,947.50, finding the requested amount to be reasonable.

The respondent insurance company sued the appellant insurance broker to enforce an indemnity provision in their agreement, under which the broker agreed to cover losses on insurance programs it sold.

The broker argued the provision was an illegal and unenforceable contract of reinsurance because the broker was not licensed under the Insurance Act.

The trial judge found the agreement was not for insurance and enforced it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that even if the agreement violated the Insurance Act, it remained enforceable.

The licensing requirements exist to protect the public, not to allow sophisticated industry participants to avoid their contractual obligations.

The appellant employer appealed a wrongful dismissal judgment awarding a twenty-seven month notice period.

The Court of Appeal held that, although the notice period was at the extreme upper limit of what was appropriate, it was still supportable on the facts and did not justify appellate intervention.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding that the respondent employee made reasonable efforts to mitigate his damages.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

Both Kingsway General and Lloyd's denied the claim, each arguing the other was responsible.

The preliminary issue was whether Kingsway General's policy was validly cancelled prior to the accident due to a missed premium financing payment to its related company, Kingsway Financial.

The arbitrator found that the premium financing arrangement was an attempt to circumvent the statutory notice requirements for cancellation under the Statutory Conditions.

The corporate veil was pierced, and the cancellation was deemed invalid for failing to provide statutory notice.

Kingsway General was held responsible for paying the benefits.

The appellant appealed an arbitration decision that denied his claim for ongoing weekly income benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued he was self-employed at the time of the accident or, alternatively, that his occupational tasks should be considered under the 'benefits if no income' test.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's findings that the appellant had not resumed his self-employment at the time of the accident and that his previous occupational tasks were properly excluded from his normal tasks given the length of time since he last worked.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits under section 13 of the Schedule until October 1993.

He applied for arbitration seeking further weekly benefits under section 12 or 13, and a special award.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was not entitled to section 12 income benefits because he was not self-employed at the time of the accident, having ceased his freelance editing business after his wife's death.

The arbitrator also denied further section 13 benefits, finding that medical evidence, including from the applicant's own doctors, established he was capable of performing the essential tasks of daily living by October 1993.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer did not act unreasonably in failing to provide a computer and chair.

The applicant was awarded expenses.