Recent Articles

Judge Says Bill 198 Meant to “Tighten Up” IA Threshold

January 16, 2009 21:03

Sherman v. Guckelsberger was released on December 29, but Ontario auto insurers can be forgiven for thinking that it was meant to have arrived four days earlier. In this case, Madam Justice Jane A. Milanetti had to decide whether or not a plaintiff’s claim satisfied the...

Test Post 2

January 15, 2009 19:52

Test Post 2Test Post 2

C.A. Confirms that If Principal Claim Prescribed, So Are FLA Claims

November 28, 2008 22:05

In a very brief decision, the Court of Appeal today said, in Godoy v. 475920 Ontario Ltd., that “if the principal claim is statute-barred the derivative claim under the Family Law Act is also barred”. Here, the principal claim was subject to the limitation period under s. 38(3) of the...

Can Defendants Ever Make Effective Rule 49 Offers in MVA Cases?

November 28, 2008 21:07

We are indebted to Mark (”Billy Idol”) Charron of Williams McEnery for alerting us to the recent decision in Peterson v. Phillips. This is another case that deals with the relationship between offers to settle in MVA claims and the $30,000 deductible imposed by the Insurance Act. The...

Not “Quantum of Solace” But “Quantum of Claims”

November 27, 2008 05:31

In McCook v. Subramaniam, Master Ronald Dash considered whether to permit a plaintiff to add as a defendant his own auto insurer, under its underinsured motorist endorsement. The insurer resisted the motion on the basis that the plaintiff had not sued within the limitation period. Ultimately, the...

Income Replacement Benefits Subject to Garnishment

November 27, 2008 02:48

Mr. Justice John Cavarzan has held, in Lease Truck Inc. v. Serbinek, that a creditor of an insured is entitled to garnishment of income replacement benefits. Once it receives notice of the garnishment, the insurer paying the accident benefits is obliged to pay 20% of the IRB to the creditor. ...

Insurer Added as Third Party Under Insurance Act Permitted to Examine Insured for Discovery

November 18, 2008 04:54

Kapileshwar v. Sivarajah is an interesting decision of Master Ronald Dash. It deals with some of the problems that can arise where an auto insurer exercises the right conferred by s. 258(14) of the Insurance Act and has itself added as a statutory third party in an action against its insured. That...

C.A.’s Applies “Litigating Finger” Test to Add Defendants After Expiry of Limitation Period

November 18, 2008 02:33

In June, the Court of Appeal laid to rest a dispute that had persisted for more than four years: do courts still have the power to allow defendants to be added to actions after the expiry of the limitation period, on the basis of “special circumstances”? In a pair of r...

Owner “Relinquished Dominion and Control” of Car, But Her Consent to Possession by Driver Still Necessary?

October 23, 2008 18:37

In Seegmiller v. Langer, Justice George R. Strathy reviewed the law with respect to when the owner of an automobile will be liable when someone else drives it and is involved in an accident. His reasons contain a useful review of the law concerning consent to possession of a vehicle and make it...

Limitation Period for MVA Pecuniary Claims Follows That of Non-pecuniary Claims Says Superior Court

October 15, 2008 17:59

Hard on the heels of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Grewal v. Ivany, released last Friday, Mr. Justice Paul Perell has delivered reasons in Ng v. Beline that address one of the issues considered in Grewal: in personal injury claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, are claims for ...