PUBLICATIONS

The Material Covered will Blow your Mind! We are so excited to announce the panel for our webinar!

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court reviewed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the "LAT") and addresses whether auto insurers can require an insured to undergo medical examinations to determine eligibility for prescription medication claims.

On January 1, 2023, the statutory deductibles and corresponding monetary thresholds in motor vehicle accident claims increased significantly by 6.9% due to inflation.

What types of physicians can opine on threshold issues? In the Ontario Superior Court decision, Sanson v Paterson v Sanson v Security National Insurance, Justice W.D Black answers the type of physicians that qualify under section 4.3(3) of O. Reg 461/96.

First Published in Advocates Quarterly. This paper addresses whether the same principles regarding the “real and substantial possibility” standard of proof apply to a hypothetical past loss claim as they do to a hypothetical future loss claim, and the interplay between the two standards of proof applicable to hypothetical claims: balance of probabilities for the “but for” causation test, and “real and substantial possibility” for damages.

There have been a number of motions to strike jury notices throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, many of which resulted in jury notices being struck.

However, in the recent decision in Corkett v. Ginn, 2021 ONSC 7434 (CanLII), the court dismissed a Plaintiff's motion to strike a jury notice in an action commenced in the Central East Region.

On November 18, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision on whereby an insurer may be allowed to deny coverage based on a policy breach discovered several years down the road.

In order to protect limitation periods, especially in cases where liability is yet to be determined, there is an obligation on counsel to identify, name, and pursue all parties who may be liable to the plaintiff(s). However, as the discovery process begins, parties often become aware that they have added in a party that will bear no liability to the plaintiff(s). Often, parties are able to consent to a dismissal or discontinuance without costs; however, there are cases in which defendant(s) will not go out without costs. In these cases, parties can move for a ruling under Rule 23.05...

On November 29, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released an important decision in Meade v. Hussein, 2021 ONSC 7850 regarding the use of single-photon emission computed tomography scans (“SPECT scans”). Justice Bale found that SPECT scans failed to meet the reliability foundation test for novel scientific evidence. This is the Court's findings...

The Ontario Court of Appeal heard an appeal in Malik v. Nikbakht, 2021 ONCA 176, brought by the plaintiff, Sarfraz Malik. The action arose from a 2013 motor vehicle accident in which Mr. Malik was driving with his wife and three sons. In 2018, Mr. Malik brought a motion for leave to amend the Statement of Claim to add a claim for damages pursuant to s.61 of the Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c. F.3., including damages for...

On June 28, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice led by Myers J., released a decision in Arksey v. Sky Zone Toronto, 2021 ONSC 4594.

Generally, this was a summary judgement based on the terms of a waiver and the release of liability by the plaintiff. Specifically, whether the plaintiff waived her right to sue arising from injury caused by the defendant's failure to supervise and follow its injury policies.

In 1985, Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was introduced to encourage parties to make and accept reasonable offers to settle. This has had the effect of discouraging parties from delaying the judicial process and increasing costs unnecessarily. Rule 49 has had a considerable effect on litigants by virtue of the risk of a large costs award following trial.

To trigger the cost consequences under Rule 49, an offer must meet strict requirements:

This type of insurance has multiple names: adverse costs insurance, trial insurance, and after the event insurance. For the purposes of this paper, we will identify it as adverse costs insurance. This insurance policy protects personal injury plaintiffs against their own disbursements incurred and opposing counsel's costs if they are unsuccessful at trial or even a motion.

Following the publication of the article Litigation Loans and Adverse Cost Insurance in March 2021, the writers received a question regarding the interplay between the doctrines of champerty and maintenance and its effect on litigation loans.

This paper provides detailed information across all Canadian jurisdictions regarding:

• Whether interest from litigation loans is recoverable by the plaintiff in Canadian actions, and
• What the impact is of adverse insurance on litigation across Canada.

In Ali v. City of Toronto, Master M.P. McGraw ruled on plaintiff's motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add a party as a defendant to the action. Master McGraw denied this motion on the basis that the winter maintenance contractor the plaintiff wished to add was immediately discoverable and as such it was beyond the limitation period to add the party.

The annual update to the statutory thresholds and deductibles for determining non-pecuniary tort damages arising from use or operation of vehicles has now been released. See Chart...

In Trumble v Soomal, 2020 ONSC 8097, Justice Sloan considered whether in a personal injury case the plaintiff or the defendant is obligated to pay for medical records.

The world has gone through many changes in the past year, and the Ontario Small Claims Court is no exception. Since suspending sittings in March 2020, the Court has progressively begun expanding its remote operations. While traditionally resistant to change, the Courts have modified their usual operations in light of these unprecedented times and now hear many matters over teleconferencing and videoconferencing technologies.

The changes that the Ontario Small Claims Court has instituted to its usual operations are of note for both counsel and clients alike. 

In the case of Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, a family insured under an Ontario motor vehicle policy, issued by Unifund, was driving a rental car in British Columbia when they were struck by a tractor-trailer insured by ICBC under a British Columbia insurance policy. The insureds sued in British Columbia and were awarded $2.5 million. Unifund, in turn, brought suit against ICBC with reference to section 275 of Ontario’s Insurance Act and sought to recover the benefits it had paid out to the family under the SABS.

The case went to the Supreme Court of Canada which found... 

On September 23, 2020, the License Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) released a ruling that it does not have jurisdiction to award punitive damages.

The Applicant filed a motion to the LAT requesting that a claim for punitive damages be added as an issue in dispute on the basis of an alleged privacy breach.

In Ontario, there is a well-established practice of asking jurors to provide reasons for their verdicts. The jury is not absolutely required to provide this information. There is a presumption of integrity regarding general verdicts; simply because the jury did not explain its verdict is not a ground for appeal.

The exception to this presumption arises in professional negligence cases...

In Ontario, s.4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, (“Act”) establishes a two-year limitation period for a claimant to commence an action, which begins to run once the claim is discovered. However, there exists an exception for those claimants that are “incapable” to commence the proceeding.

In this case study, a man suffering from mental illness and psychotic delusions, killed his son and later commenced an action against the drug company...

Access to well-functioning justice and court systems are fundamental to a just and fair Canadian society. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has created challenges that have impacted the Canadian justice system.

Recently, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has struck civil juries in two personal injury actions...

Amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, courts in Ontario have been working to modify existing online infrastructures and acquire new technologies in order to meet the needs of Ontarians and to maintain the safety of those who work in the courts. In doing so, the Ministry of the Attorney General ("MAG") has recently expanded the Justice Services Online platform and procured "CaseLines" for the use of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The following are some updates around civil matters in the Superior Court of Justice in the Central East Region. Please note they are all subject to change.

You have just been sued for breach of contract by a former business partner.

As you skim through a legal document that sets out a laundry list of your alleged failures and faux pas, a few paragraphs jump out at you. Why does the document make reference to an argument over the design of your company's logo? And why is there commentary on the not-so-secret office romance between two of your employees? As far as you can tell, neither of these issues have anything to do with the contract in dispute.

Ontario courts and tribunals have recently considered the application of the doctrine of discoverability in the context of accident benefit claims. These considerations have developed the common law in notable ways for insurers and insureds alike. Specifically, special considerations now arise in the context of Accident Benefits where limitation periods are concerned...

While it has been “business as usual” for some Canadian companies and organizations, with employees working from home, many industries have been forced to cease operations or operate at reduced capacities...

There are various issues operating for an insurer, in both quantifying and crystallizing the terms of the loss, to determine if coverage is triggered pursuant to any given policy of insurance...
 

In October of this year, our office released a case comment concerning the decision in Hunt v Peel Mutual Insurance Company. In the case, Mr. Hunt (the appellant) and his daughter, Amealia, were passengers in a vehicle driven by Mr. Hunt's girlfriend, Tammy-Lynn Dingman. Ms. Dingman was driving while impaired at the time.  In this case comment. we will further analyze why the Court of Appeal found that Amealia's allegations did not pertain to Mr. Hunt's use or operation of a vehicle.

This case involves two accidents involving two recreational off-road vehicles – an all-terrain vehicle (“ATV”) and a dirt bike – heard together because they raise the same jurisdictional issue at law.... The issue before the Court was whether Ontario's statutory accident benefits regime applies differently if the subject accident occurs outside of Ontario.

Where an MVA occurs in Ontario, and there is an out-of-province insurer policy covering the claimant, and that insurer has signed the Power of Attorney and Undertaking (PAU), the insurer is bound by s. 268 of the Insurance Act in its entirety.

A front-seated passenger who unexpectedly grabbed the wheel of a vehicle, causing an accident, is considered to have operated the vehicle without the driver's consent. It was not foreseeable the passenger would grab the wheel, despite the fact that the driver and passenger were arguing and emotional.

The owner of the vehicle in such a situation is not vicariously liable under s. 192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act. Summary judgment in favour of a dismissal against the owner was upheld.

The Court of Appeal determined that to be covered under s. 239 of the Insurance Act, an occupant's liability for loss or damage must arise from the use or operation of the vehicle. Mr. Hunt and his daughter, Amealia, were passengers in a vehicle driven by Mr. Hunt's girlfriend, Tammy-Lynn Dingman, who was driving impaired. Ms. Dingman held an automobile insurance policy at the time with Peel Mutual Insurance Company.

Amelia's injuries arose from the impaired driver's use of the vehicle. However, Mr. Hunt's liability arises from negligent parenting, not from his actions as an occupant of the vehicle.

“Do my insurance benefits cover my medical marijuana costs?”

It’s a question that claimants are increasingly asking of their first-party healthcare insurers and one that is not always easily answered. 

On one hand, the use of cannabis as a legitimate treatment option has grown exponentially in recent years. On the other, the associated medical literature is in somewhat of a nascent stage, and it is not always clear whether marijuana will aid an injured party with their recovery (at least in any clinically verifiable sense).

Under the Statutory Accident Benefit Schedule (“Schedule”), those injured in a motor vehicle accident are entitled to different levels of benefits according to the severity and classification of their impairments. These levels are broken down into one of three categories: minor impairments non-catastrophic impairments and catastrophic impairments. 

This paper is devoted to minor impairments, which are handled under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).1

The MIG provides a framework for treating insured persons involved in motor vehicle accidents who sustain “minor injuries.” 
 

In Gilbraith v. Intact Insurance Company,1 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice offered clarification on the degree of assistance an expert report submitted as an attachment to a solicitor's affidavit can provide in a summary judgment motion. The Court also determined whether the throwing of an object out of a moving vehicle classified as an intervening act sufficient to break the causative link between the plaintiff's injuries and the use and operation of a motor vehicle. This case is significant as it introduces unique analysis that can be used to attribute more injuries to the use and operation of an automobile as well as provide an additional tool to defend a summary judgment motion.

The modern shipping industry has drastically influenced the complexity of cargo movements. With this growing complexity of logistics transactions and the industry as a whole, carriers often risk losing out on the payment of freight charges if an intermediary goes bankrupt or otherwise decides to withhold payment.

Although the law in Canada is not so straightforward, carriers have a myriad of legal tools to collect on unpaid freight charges beyond merely advancing a claim for breach of contract against the party by whom they were retained...

In Pavlovic v. Vankar, 2019 ONSC 61, Justice Nightingale of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted a summary judgment motion in favour of the defendant Pavlovic, dismissing the plaintiff's action and the cross-claim of the co-defendants as against him despite conflicting evidence on a key liability issue.

The defendant Pavlovic brought this motion for summary judgement to dismiss the plaintiff's action and the cross-claim of the co-defendants Vankar against him...

The past decade has given rise to the ‘sharing economy', which has since become ubiquitous and has raised an assortment of legal issues for stakeholders and policymakers as a result.

In Heller v Uber Technologies Inc. the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed a decision to uphold an arbitration (and effectively, forum selection and choice of law) clause in an Uber services agreement, finding it both unenforceable and unconscionable.

In R. v. Cyr-Langlois, the Supreme Court of Canada offered clarification on the type of evidence that is required to rebut the presumptions of accuracy and identity applicable to breathalyzer test results under section 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (“Code”). In doing so, Wagner C.J., writing for the majority, confirmed that the evidence must amount to more than conjecture or speculation. This case is significant for defence lawyers, as it demonstrates that an accused will likely need to adduce concrete factual evidence in order to rebut the breathalyzer presumptions.

Two recent Ontario Court of Appeal decisions have provided clarity on the uncertain relationship between tort damage awards and Statutory Accident Benefits (SABs) under s 267.8 of the Insurance Act.

While heard together, these cases address different aspects of the tort damage award/SABs relationship. Cadieux v Cloutier addressed the deductibility of SABs paid before trial, whereas Carroll v McEwan addressed the deductibility and assignment of SABs to be paid after trial.

Because self-reports factor heavily into medical assessments for chronic pain, it can be very challenging to distinguish between plaintiffs or applicants that legitimately suffer from chronic pain and those who do not. The plaintiff's or applicant's credibility becomes a central issue in the litigation, and counsel often looks to medical experts for guidance. While it is possible to build a defence based on expert medical opinion, it helps to have additional evidence to tip the balance in favour of a successful defence. Surveillance, when properly gathered, can be an effective tool to impugn a plaintiff's or applicant's credibility and challenge the validity of his or her claim.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video is worth more than a million. This is why surveillance evidence in bodily injury actions is such a powerful and persuasive tool – a fact that has been recognized by judges, who are very careful when admitting surveillance into the record as substantive evidence.

In order for surveillance to be admissible as substantive evidence, the first hurdle it must satisfy is being accurate in truly representing the facts. The courts have been clear that a surveillance report must include...

The following is an overview along with the key takeaways on recent case law regarding the admissibility of surveillance and when surveillance should be disclosed in accident benefit disputes before the License Appeal Tribunal and tort claims.

Surveillance evidence is among the most powerful tools available to a defence lawyer and their client. Correctly deployed, surveillance can be a fatal blow to a plaintiff's claim. Triers of fact, jurors particularly, cannot help but be impacted by surveillance evidence. Numerous studies show that visual memory retention far exceeds audio recall. Due to the power of surveillance evidence relative to cost, many insurers have at least some experience in obtaining this form of evidence. Since the Ontario Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Iannarella v Corbett, the tactical landscape for surveillance has changed and the use of surveillance evidence has been under court scrutiny.

Attempting to introduce surveillance as evidence at trial is becoming increasingly more challenging. In order to use surveillance as substantive evidence at trial, the Court has made it abundantly clear that certain requirements must be met.

In the absence of any human input in the operation of vehicles (level 5),drivers are rendered passengers and any liability for causinOKg an accident inevitably shifts from the motorist to the manufacturer; from the person to the product.

In addressing what that might look like into the future and how an adjuster could handle litigation involving autonomous vehicles ...

You have been retained to act for the insurer and the driver as a result of a rear-end motor vehicle accident in which the driver has been rear-ended. There is likely no liability against your client and there are no mechanical issues with the vehicle. Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, you encounter a difficult insured who refuses to co-operate and fails to reply to your letters, phone calls, or requests (pleas), that they attend examination for discovery. What do you do?

This decision, Mary Shuttleworth v. License Appeal Tribunal, 2018 ONSC 3790, concerns a claimant who brought a dispute over statutory accident benefits to the License Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”), arising from a motor vehicle collision. The LAT has statutory authority to hear all disputes related to benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (“SABS”).

The LAT Adjudicator decided that the claimant's injuries did not warrant a designation of catastrophic impairment as defined in the SABS. A designation of catastrophic impairment under the SABS increases limits of some benefits and is a prerequisite for other benefits.

To what extent must service technicians warn their customers of particular risks associated with the product they are servicing? After presiding over a seven-day trial on liability alone, Madame Justice S. Gomery grappled with this very question and provided a framework to help answer it in her recent decision in Maxrelco v Lumipro Inc., 2018 ONSC 3638.

This decision explains what factors would trigger the duty to warn and in what circumstances would they attract liability.

In a decision that will likely be replicated by other courts nationwide, Master MacAfee in Robichaud v McAulay, 2018 ONSC 3636, ordered production of an insurer's underwriting file along with the relevant insurance broker's file.

The underlying litigation involved a 2012 motor vehicle accident. The defendant, Kyriakos Constantinidis, was driving his mother's car and rear-ended the plaintiff. The insurer denied coverage to Kyriakos, claiming that he did not have consent to possess his mother's vehicle. The plaintiff pled that Kyriakos had consent, whereas the mother denied providing consent.

In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that common interest privilege (“CIP”) is a principle of Canadian law. This principle is unlike solicitor-client privilege, in that communication between counsel and a third party may be considered privileged if the shared information is to benefit both parties, especially with respect to the furtherance of a commercial transaction. The court overturned a Federal Court decision which held that that CIP is not a principle of Canadian law.

Autonomous vehicles use artificial intelligence and sense their environment using sensors and GPS coordinates to drive themselves without human input. However, this is a very broad term that encompasses everything from cars assisting with keeping themselves in their lane to cars that require no human input.

The United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York, has charged five individuals with defrauding businesses and insurance companies of more than $31.7 million in an elaborate slip and fall scheme dating back to 2013.

Peter Kalkanis, Bryan Duncan, Kerry Gordon, Robert Locust, and Ryan Rainford (“the accused”) are charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. Peter Kalkanis, the alleged “ringleader” of the scheme, is also charged with aggravated identity theft.These charges relate to how the fraud scheme was allegedly carried out...

In the recent decision of Mega International Commercial Bank (Canada) v. Yung (“Mega International”), the Ontario Court of Appeal provided an analysis of the contentious issue of whether the limitation period for a contribution and indemnity claim (under section 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002 (“the Act”)) is an absolute limitation period, or if it is subject to issues of discoverability.

Service contracts as between sophisticated parties often contain numerous indemnity and insurance provisions, subject to specific terms. Determining whether a duty to defend an additional insured under a Commercial General Liability Policy (“CGL Policy”) is triggered in a particular instance is, therefore, an intricate exercise. Many CGL Policies provide that one party, for example, a subcontractor or service provider, agrees to defend (and often indemnify) the owner of the property and add them as an “additional insured”.

The enactment of Ontario Regulation 283/95 – Disputes Between Insurers (the “Regulation”) has obliged insurers to continue payment of Statutory Accident Benefits (“SABS”) to injured person even where entitlement to these benefits is disputed. At the same time, the insurers ‘battle it out' behind the scenes over which has higher priority and should be paying for the claimed benefits.

A priority dispute arises when there are multiple motor vehicle liability policies which might respond to a SABS claim made by an individual involved in a motor vehicle accident.

Section 268(2) of the Ontario Insurance Act sets out the hierarchy of insurers obligated to pay SABS with respect to the occupant claimants, as follows:

On April 11, 2017, David Marshall, Special Advisor to the Minister of Finance, released his final 103-page report regarding Ontario's auto insurance system. The report was entitled: Fair Benefits Fairly Delivered (the “Report”).

The Report's introduction outlines the purpose of David Marshall's role as Special Advisor and the purpose of his appointment, by Order in Council, to review and make recommendations for improvements in the auto insurance system in Ontario. Marshall explains that Ontario is often criticized as having the most expensive auto insurance in Canada.

In an increasingly technological age, the production of cell phone records is becoming a common undertaking request in actions arising out of motor vehicle accidents. In Austin v. Smith,1 the Court recognized the importance of these records and ordered production of them, even where there was no evidence that the cell phone was in use at the time of the accident.Rather, the mere admission that the driver had a cell phone in his or her vehicle at the time of the accident was sufficient to warrant the production of the cell phone records.

The appeal decision in Ontario (Minister of Finance) v AXA Insurance1 is an important lesson for insurers who claim to have cancelled an insured's automobile policy, specifically when a priority dispute later arises.

The recent tragic accident in Arizona involving an autonomous vehicle and a pedestrian raises some important questions about liability. While not yet available to consumers, self-driving cars are being tested on streets throughout the United States and Canada in order to fine-tune and develop the emerging technology with the ultimate goal of reducing collisions involving motor vehicles.

The question this unfortunate accident raises is who is at fault? Is it the test driver behind the wheel? The manufacturers of sensors or radar? The developer of the software? The owner of the vehicle? Or was it purely contributory negligence on the part of the pedestrian?

Recently, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Thomson v Portelance, 2018 ONSC 1278, reminded the Bar that a party to motor vehicle accident litigation in Ontario must schedule a mediation once requested.

In Thomson, Justice Firestone presided over a case conference requested by the plaintiff in a situation where the defendant refused to schedule mediation until after examinations for discovery were complete...

In the midst of a crisis, the common law Doctrine of Emergency is a defendant's saving grace.

When faced with a sudden emergency that a driver is not responsible for creating, he or she cannot be held to a standard of conduct of a reasonable driver in ordinary circumstances – the unique and exigent circumstances must be taken into account when measuring the appropriate standard of care and whether or not there was a breach.

On February 23, 2018, in a split-decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Isaac Estate v Matuszynska1 upheld a lower court's decision granting summary judgment and dismissing the action, where the Doctrine of Emergency was found to apply in a drug transaction that went horribly wrong.

A recent Court of Appeal decision1 has clarified two issues that are of relevance to insurers involved in priority disputes.

Both appeals involved individuals who were claiming accident benefits although they were listed as excluded drivers in their parents' policies.

The first issue relates to whether excluded drivers in a household may be entitled to accident benefit coverage from the insurers who issue the given policy.

The second issue relates to what is the appropriate standard of review for an insurance arbitrator's decision involving specialized expertise...

In recent years, there have been a number of developments in the law which have resulted in escalating damage awards, particularly in catastrophic injury cases. The paper will outline some of these developments relating to:

I. Future Care Costs;
II. Guardianship and Management Fees; and
III. Risk Premiums.

It was a cold and snowy January evening on Highway 401. A small cargo van was travelling eastbound on a delivery assignment to Ottawa, Ontario. This van was hauling a variety of heavy boxes, of various sizes and weights, which were haphazardly placed in the van. The company had installed a small plywood panel between the driver and the cargo area as an afterthought a couple of weeks previously.

Tragedy struck shortly after the driver finished a break at the Odessa OnRoute. Upon accelerating out of the exit ramp, the van encountered some ice and started to skid. Frantically trying to regain control, the driver hit the brakes hard, resulting in jarring which caused the cargo in the back to become dislodged. One box hit the driver, who then could not prevent the van from veering into the path of a sedan driven by a 63-year-old retiree. Both cars ended up in the ditch and, while it appeared that no one was severely hurt, damages to the vehicles resulted in total losses.

The retired sedan driver decided, prior to the expiration of the limitation period, to sue the driver of the van for negligence. There was, however, a nagging issue related to the storage of the cargo...

What kind of evidence is likely to cause an automobile tort claim to flop?

A threshold decision of Justice P. J. Monahan released December 13, 2017, provides useful guidance on the issue.

The circumstances will sound familiar to insurers and their counsel.

Does the duty of good faith require a disability insurer to inform a claimant of a legislative limitation period?

The end of 2017 brought the dismissal of a leave application at the Supreme Court of Canada that relates to this issue and which will be of interest to insurers throughout Ontario and throughout the country.

In Usanovic v. Penncorp, the Ontario Court of Appeal had decided that insurers were not obligated to inform insureds of the two-year limitation period when denying benefits.

Recently, in Day v Haiderzadeh,1 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice reiterated settled law that evidence given in support of a potential question to be given to a jury cannot be based on pure speculation in future care costs claims. Rather, any question must include a minimum amount of objective evidence for a potential jury to calculate that amount. In this case, the court held that the evidence provided was wholly insufficient and invited a jury to speculate and generate a number “out of thin air”. All potential questions were rejected.

This case is an important reminder that, for any potential questions to be asked to a jury, an adequate and relevant amount of evidence must be put forward. 

In the recent case of Wagner v Fellows,1 Mullins J. of the Superior Court found the defendant vehicle owner, Ms. Ley, not liable for the single-vehicle accident caused by her son under s. 192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act R.S.O. 1990, c H-8 (“HTA”). In assessing this issue, which was one of many issues before her, Mullins J. determined that Mr. Fellows had operated his mother's vehicle without her implied consent.

Recently in Middleton v Pankhurst,1 the Court of Appeal confirmed the parameters in which insurers may deny coverage on the basis that the insured was not a “person authorized by law” in accordance to Statutory 4 (1) Condition of O. Reg. 777/93:

Authority to drive 
4 (1) The insured shall not drive or operate or permit any other person to drive or operate the automobile unless...

As Daylight Savings Time ends, so begins a new time for drivers in Ontario. Drivers must take extra care of their surroundings not only because of the weather but also because of reduced visibility due to less daylight. These shorter days and longer nights bring the risk of more motor vehicle accidents with pedestrians and cyclists.

This article will review post-accident steps for insurers and drivers.

Non-pecuniary damages (also called general damages) are awarded to a plaintiff that sustained a non-monetary loss. These damages are not capable of exact quantification. Examples of such losses include, inter alia, pain and suffering. 

On August 1, 2015, legislative reform to the Insurance Act2 took effect. The statutory deductible applicable to damages for a non-pecuniary loss was increased.

The amendments to the Insurance Act did not contain specified dates upon which the increased deductible and lower prejudgment interest rate were to come into effect. Naturally, the questions that arose from the above-described legislative changes were as follows...

Complaints about civil jury trials in motor vehicle cases are not novel or uncommon. It is the perception of some (most notably the plaintiff bar) that jury results are typically unfavourable to plaintiffs. Recently, the complaints have increased to the point where even the Judiciary is weighing in.

For example, in 2016 a Superior Court Judge commented in a threshold decision... 

Autonomous vehicles are defined as self-driving vehicles capable of sensing their environment using artificial intelligence, sensors and GPS coordinates to drive themselves without human input.1 However, not all cars with autonomous features necessarily operate on the same level of automation. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International issued a standard classification for defining the various levels of automation in a car. They have identified 6 levels in total, from 0-5...

Over the years, Canadian courts have spent considerable time answering the question: “whether an insured's negligence while using or operating a motor vehicle has ‘caused' – in its recognized legal sense – the injuries sustained by the victim.”1 Now that Uber has revolutionized the way we transport passengers to their chosen destinations, this will inevitably add to the number of vehicle-for-hire on the road. Given this increase, we can expect an escalation of lawsuits involving the liability for vehicles-for-hire. Some of these lawsuits will involve Uber driver's liability. When these circumstances arise, the Courts will have to decide what principles to apply. The cases discussed will provide some guidance as to how the courts may deal with these issues in the future.

In his infamous article, “The Sharing Revolution – It's About More Than Just Getting Twice the Value For Half the Cost”, Paul Z. Pilzer, an American economist and self-proclaimed ‘social entrepreneur', discusses a phenomenon he refers to as “the sharing revolution”. He calls it the most significant change in the history of the Western world since the nineteenth century when the creation of affordable automobiles forever shaped our society. Mr. Pilzer argues that Uber is only a part of this Sharing Revolution in which everything – how we drive, what we eat, where we sleep – is becoming shared by more than one individual in order to halve the cost. It is this sharing revolution that, according to Mr. Pilzner, will surpass our conventional service providers, will allow for cheaper goods and services and ultimately revolutionize our society.

The recent LAT decision in 16-000218 v. Aviva Insurance broadens the definition of the term “accident” as per SABS and potentially opens doors for accident benefits claims being brought forward that don't necessarily fit neatly into the classic category of what we are used to thinking about as an “accident”.

A seven-year old elementary school student suffering from cerebral palsy and quadriplegia was picked up by a school bus at her home. The driver was to take the applicant to school, but instead, with the applicant still in the vehicle, travelled to the driver's own house, got into a different vehicle, and left. The applicant remained in the school bus, alone and unattended, for approximately two hours...

All hosts know there are several elements that need to be properly planned when hosting a social function: the company, the food, the music and, of course, the refreshments. With the anticipated legalization of recreational marijuana in Canada, however, could a social host face exposure if marijuana is provided and something unexpected happens?

In bodily injury claims, there are typically two types of examination of the plaintiff that take place: (1) Examinations for Discovery, and (2) Independent Medical Examinations.

The following are issues that typically arise in scheduling examinations for discovery and independent medical assessments.

Trial judges in motor vehicle accident cases are like bouncers — plaintiffs show up to their courtrooms asking to be let over the threshold. While their cases may not be perfect, a judge will be more inclined to let their cases through if the plaintiffs are likable and if the judge is reasonably satisfied their decision will not cause him or her problems after-the-fact (namely an appeal or an unfair result).

While certainly the main issue upon a threshold decision is whether or not a plaintiff meets the test (namely whether his or her employment, education or activities of daily living are impaired to the requisite degree for the foreseeable future), a plaintiff's credibility and presentation is important to keep in mind when reading a threshold decision.

Insurance fraud is a tale as old as time. The earliest recorded incident occurred in Ancient Greece, around 300 BC. Hegestratos, a merchant, took out an insurance policy which required payment (with interest) upon his ship's safe arrival to its destination. Failing to repay the loan would result in repossession of the ship and its cargo. Hegestratos conspired to commit insurance fraud by sinking his empty ship and selling the cargo, thereby keeping the loan. For the record, he was unsuccessful, as he drowned trying to escape his crew who caught on to his plans.1

Since then, transportation methods have evolved, and so have opportunities for fraud.

Effective July 1, 2017, the definition of a Road-Building Machine (RBM) will be narrowed, pursuant to Ontario Regulation 398/16. Accordingly, certain vehicles will no longer be considered road-building machines, but instead will be deemed Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs).

This paper provides the impact and Implications for Insurers...

Amongst the most challenging personal injury cases to defend are those where a Plaintiff's accident-related injuries are solely psychological in nature. As there is no objective evidence for defence lawyers to look to when attempting to verify or challenge a Plaintiff's account of their injuries or impairments caused by an accident, Defendants have no choice but to rely on the expertise of experts when attempting to determine the severity of a Plaintiff's psychological and emotional injuries and impairments.

The Supreme Court of Canada has released a decision that makes this determination that much more challenging for defence lawyers by finding that expert evidence of a recognized psychiatric or psychological illness is not required for a plaintiff to recover damages for mental injuries.

As of May 1, 2017, the practice direction regarding the timing of mandatory mediations in Toronto has changed.

Mandatory mediations must now be completed prior to an action being set down for trial unless a judge or case management master orders otherwise.  This is a significant change from the past practice direction that only required mandatory mediations to be scheduled before the action could be set down for trial. This change applies to all Toronto files that have not yet been set down for trial.

We anticipate that this change to the practice direction will lead to earlier mediations on Toronto matters. We are already starting to see the impact of this change, in terms of plaintiffs' counsel reaching out earlier than ever to schedule mediations, some even seeking to schedule same at the same time as scheduling discoveries.

It is hoped that the recent appeal decision in MVACF and Barnes will shed some light on this turbulent, but interesting, area of accident benefits.

The issue, in this case, was whether the amendment applied to the Applicant for services provided after its effective date.

Mediation is an increasingly common form of dispute resolution and one which provides many benefits to any party who would otherwise engage in litigation. However, there are several benefits and concerns which are unique to municipalities named as defendants in motor vehicle accident claims...

On Monday, March 28, 2017, the Ontario Court of Appeal released their decision, Lloyd v. Bush, 2017 ONCA 252. This case was an appeal by the County of Lennox and Addington (the "County") and the Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee ("the Town") from a trial level decision that found the respective municipalities liable for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident.

With the legalization of marijuana appearing more like a certainty than a possibility, legislators ought to be determining how best to address the increased societal risks associated with drug-impaired driving.

Currently, the Government has authorized a 12-part evaluation for drug impairment of motorists.

Earlier today, the Supreme Court of Canada released a decision in R v. Bingley that provided guidance to lower courts on how evidence of drug-impaired driving is to be admitted...

This first of its kind collision sparked concern in the technology industry. Debates ensued as to whether the safety feature created to eliminate (or at the very least, reduce) motor vehicle accidents was the cause of the accident, whether human error was to blame, or some combination of the two...

In recent months, tensions have risen between regulators and companies developing autonomous vehicles. Applying and waiting for the approval of permits may seem inordinate for developers eager to test out and improve their autonomous technology in a highly competitive and fast-paced field. Regulators, on the other hand, must balance the competing interests of private business as well as the safety and integrity of the roads for the public. The following are a few examples of this tension at play.

With the release of the Marijuana Task Force Report that made recommendations associated with the potential framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis, the legalization of marijuana seems imminent. While the report made many recommendations, it left unanswered questions relating to how the justice system ought to deal with drivers impaired by marijuana ("drugged driving").

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) acted quickly and efficiently to correct an error that was contained in the decision of 16-000179 - Raho Mohamud v. Old Republic Insurance Company that was released by the tribunal earlier this month. This matter, which proceeded by way of a written hearing, dealt with entitlement to pre-104 week IRBs.

In the recent decision of Aranas v. Kolodziej, Michael Kennedy of McCague Borlack was successful in securing a dismissal of the action as against its client on summary judgment. Despite the challenges routinely presented by these motions in the motor vehicle accident context, the defendants led sufficient evidence to establish that there was no genuine issue requiring trial.

Self-driving cars are no longer something we can only imagine in futuristic movies. Taken right out of James Bond, Land Rover's Range Rover Sport is already capable of being controlled via smartphone like a remote-controlled car. Subaru's EyeSight system has the ability to independently adjust cruise control to maintain a safe distance from the car ahead. Tesla's vehicles are equipped with a system, aptly named "autopilot", that allows for near-full control of the vehicle during highway driving using radars and cameras to stay in the middle of a lane, transition from one highway to another, and even automatically change lanes without requiring driver input. The technology is already here, and if your car is relatively new, it's probably already in your own driveway to some degree...

The Court of Appeal has released a decision placing the onus on an insurer for determining whether a claimant is catastrophically impaired. Specifically, if an insurer withholds catastrophic benefits until it receives an OCF-19, then it could be faced with a massive interest award from the date the catastrophic impairment arose (not the date the OCF-19 was submitted or accepted by the insurer).

In this case, Economical appealed the order of the application judge that required it to pay the applicant interest...

How “serious” does a “serious impairment” have to be for a Plaintiff to pass the threshold under section 267.5 of the Insurance Act?

A recently released appeal decision of the Divisional Court provides useful guidance on the pitfalls awaiting Plaintiffs in their attempts to establish a threshold injury.

The Government of Ontario is striving to make the roads in this province a safer place. In one of its latest endeavors, Ontario has implemented a new regulation in an effort to promote safer driving during those slushy and icy winter months.

The new regulation pertains to offering Ontario drivers an incentive to get winter tires on their vehicles.

This paper includes case law that indicates not having winter tires could perhaps affect the outcome of a decision.

Just as Confucius guided us so many centuries ago, similarly, in order to understand the concept of causation in accident benefits context, we must look to the past...   

Although tort law clearly limited the use of the "material contribution" test, the accident benefits jurisprudence continued to use it in many instances as the appropriate test for causation. 

This case involved an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The Jury divided liability in the proportion of 62/38 between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. The Plaintiff, Barbara Carroll, was awarded ...

During the course of the trial, the Defendants were taken by surprise on several occasions.

Local Decisions on Costs

The litigation stemmed from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on December 5, 2009. The plaintiff, Sara Corbett, was a homemaker with two young sons. Her motor vehicle was hit by an oncoming vehicle while she was stopped and preparing to turn into a driveway. The vehicle's air bags did not deploy. Ms. Corbett declined to go to the hospital when the ambulance arrived.

As a result of the accident, Ms. Corbett developed whiplash type symptoms, which evolved into chronic pain syndrome. During trial, Ms. Corbett's evidence was that her chronic pain led to the breakup of her marriage. The jury awarded the plaintiff and her family a total of...

Subjective injuries present a multifaceted problem for defense lawyers. To clarify, subjective injuries refer to instances where a plaintiff makes a claim for chronic pain or a mental illness that is difficult to objectively substantiate through scientific or medical evidence.

This then raises an important question: what is the difference between cases involving chronic pain where the plaintiff receives compensation for his or her injuries and those cases where no such awards are made? The answer appears to be related to the plaintiff’s credibility. Specifically, because of the lack of objective evidence that is available to support a claim for chronic pain, almost all of these cases boil down to the issue of credibility.

A vessel strikes a marine terminal trestle while in port in Vancouver, causing damage in excess of $60 million dollars. The vessel's worth pales in comparison to the damages caused, though there are a number of sister ships also docked at the port. The terminal owner is rightfully concerned that the vessels will simply leave Canadian waters, sailing out of the jurisdiction and taking the opportunity for any realistic recovery along with them. How can the terminal owners guarantee a future judgment will be satisfied when no one ship can satisfy the damages?

It is often said that a bill of lading is not a contract of carriage, but is merely “excellent evidence” of its terms. However, the courts are divided on how far beyond the bill of lading we can go, specifically in terms of declaring the value of a shipment. This unpredictability in the law can mean the difference of hundreds of thousands of dollars for a carrier who has lost or damaged cargo in its possession.

Whether an expense or service is “reasonable and necessary” is an important legal test in the context of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (“the Schedule”). It is used to determine entitlement to the majority of benefits available under the Schedule.

The Court of Appeal released a new decision last week on dependency in a priority dispute between Intact and Allstate.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the circumstances of the relationship of the claimants, a woman (Paula) and her two children, who moved in with Paula’s boyfriend (Kyle) only seven weeks before the accident, in order to determine priority...

Pokémon Go, a new app for Android and iOS users, has captured the attention of smartphone users worldwide since its release on July 6, 2016. The app uses the digital camera and GPS technologies in smartphones to create an augmented reality in which users can capture, train, and battle their Pokémon in real life settings. Although a fun and perhaps nostalgic activity for some, Pokémon Go will soon become a real concern for liability insurers.

News of the death of Joshua Brown, a Florida man who died following a motor vehicle accident that occurred while his Tesla Model S vehicle was in autopilot mode, has attracted international media attention as he is the first US fatality from a motor vehicle accident where the deceased was in a vehicle that was in self-driving mode. This development provides occasion for us to comment further on the status of autonomous vehicles and the law in Ontario.

On June 28, 2016, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (the Ministry) made an announcement that has significant implications for both the trucking and insurance industry. As of July 1, 2017, individuals seeking to obtain their Class A license for commercial trucks will be required to successfully complete an entry-level training course before being permitted to take their Class A road test.

On June 6, 2016, the Superior Court of Justice released its decision inMarfo v. Ahmed.1 In this case, the defendants, having already obtained a defence physiatrist assessment, requested that the plaintiff undergo a defence orthopedic assessment to counter the orthopedic report served by the plaintiff. Master Muir rejected the request and dismissed the defendants' motion, with costs. Here's why...

Although the courts are sceptical of “dubious science”, the test for the admissibility of expert evidence still responds to ever-changing developments in science and technology. Consequently, defence counsel, in strategizing the long-term viability of a case, should consider whether new technologies can assist in illuminating the medical condition of plaintiffs and result in reduced future medical treatment and, therefore, reduced future care costs.

In August of 2015, the Ontario government proposed significant amendments to the province's no-fault automobile benefits regime, effective June 1, 2016.¹ These amendments, made primarily to two existing regulations, echo announcements made by the government in its 2015 Budget.

The most notable changes are to the following areas: (a) non-earner benefits; (b) non-catastrophic and catastrophic benefits limits; and perhaps most important, (c) the definition of what constitutes a catastrophic impairment. 

This paper is intended to serve as a brief update on two topics that we focused on in our previous papers: Uber and autonomous vehicles. Given the rapidly evolving nature of both of these topics, we thought it prudent to provide a brief update on latest developments along with their implications for the insurance industry. 

While the law was clear that a first party insurer ‘discovers' its claim for loss transfer on the day after it makes a request for indemnification, it was unclear whether there are any limitation periods relating to when a first party insurer must deliver an indemnification request to be entitled to seek indemnification under the loss transfer provision of the Insurance Act. This gap in the legislation was clarified in November when the Court of Appeal released its decision in the appeal of Intact Insurance Company of Canada v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada and found that the doctrine of laches is not available to second party insurers when defending a claim for loss transfer. 

Is an insurer's right to request or conduct an Examination Under Oath limited to the 10 day time period described in Section 36(4) and Section 33 (1) of the SABS?

FSCO was required to revisit the issue in a preliminary decision of Choeun ats Allstate issued by Arbitrator Janette Mills on March 14, 2016... 

What constitutes a valid refusal of an accident benefit on the part of an insurer?

FSCO Arbitrator Anne Morris was required to revisit the issue in the hearing of Jody Falcon ats State Farm, with reasons released on February 16, 2016.

The Arbitrator's conclusion will be a surprise to many in the insurance industry as all three Explanations of Benefits ("OCF-9s") delivered by State Farm were considered to be invalid. As a consequence, no limitation period had been triggered, allowing the insured to pursue entitlement to an Income Replacement Benefit notwithstanding the passage of five and a half years since entitlement was disputed.

A decision released on March 1, 2016 by Justice Perell of the Superior Court serves as a useful reminder to insurers of the demanding notice requirements that apply to requests for repayment under Section 47 of the SABS.

The decision provides useful guidance to insurers about what to do in the face of a Plaintiff who resists a request for repayment.

A newly released decision of the Superior Court has put time limits on the application of legislation that sought to “cap” the amount payable in respect of attendant care benefits.

Effective February 1, 2014 Ontario Regulation 347/13 provided that attendant care benefits provided by a family member were to be “capped” at the “amount of the economic loss sustained by that family member” as a result of providing the care.

The regulation was silent on the issue of whether it applied to claims arising from accidents occurring before February 1, 2014. This decision sheds some light.

In this age of fingerprint readers and PINs, I find it relieving to see that the old-fashioned signature can still hold sway. Indeed, the existence of a signature in accident benefits claims can make or break a file. In the recent case of Chaparina and State Farm1, Arbitrator Sapin, the procedural maven of the Financial Services Commission2, concluded that State Farm did not have to pay disputed medical benefits because treatment plans were not signed by both the claimant and the health practitioner who allegedly completed it. This ruling proves that accident benefits insurers must pay close attention to the details of treatment plans.

For an accident benefits insurer, the denial of a treatment plan used to be such a simple thing.

In an attempt to reduce the costs associated with insurer's examinations, the Ontario Legislature made insurer's examinations optional. In doing this, however, it introduced new procedural hurdles that insurers must overcome in order to properly deny treatment plans.

It's no joke—April Fools' (April 1, 2016) marks the day when accident benefit arbitration applications will begin to be received by the Licence Appeals Tribunal (“the LAT”) instead of by FSCO.

But fear not! The LAT's process, while new and unfamiliar, is in fact quite similar to that of the dispute resolution process at FSCO.

In the recently decided case of Gardiner v. MacDonald, 2016 ONSC 602, Madame Justice Roccamo presided over a trial arising from a brutal collision where a public transit bus T-boned an SUV at 1:54 a.m., on a cold, January morning, in Ottawa.

The public transit bus was travelling northbound on a well-travelled road in the "bus lane", and entered the intersection on a green light. The SUV was travelling westbound and entered the same intersection on a red light when it was struck by the bus, and propelled in a northerly direction until it came to a rest in the snowy and slushy street. The collision was so bad that the bus crossed a snow-covered median before coming to rest in a ditch.

Alcohol use by the driver of the SUV was a factor in the collision; no charges were laid against the bus driver as a result of the accident, but tragically, 3 of the occupants of the SUV, including the driver, were fatally injured. A fourth occupant sustained catastrophic injuries.

The only issue at trial was whether the bus driver (and by extension the municipality) was partially liable for the collision.

A recent dismissal by the Court of Appeal for Ontario reaffirms that plaintiffs are required to commence their actions for underinsured, uninsured or unidentified coverage in the jurisdiction in which the contract was made, and for tort actions to be made in a jurisdiction with a presumptive connecting factor.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently handed down its latest views regarding when an Ontario court can assume jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. 

In order to fully consider the viability of subrogation in any given action, it is important to determine any limitations on recovery which may be in place. In the context of carriage for reward, it is well understood that limitation of liability clauses are usually inserted into Bills of Lading or other agreements, and are often established by statute, or international convention.

This paper contains an update to three areas of transportation law with three recent cases from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Appeal across three diverse issues that can impact a wide array of parties.

The first case is Baroch v. Canada Cartage which dealt with a class action dispute relating to unpaid overtime. The second case is A&A Trading Ltd. v. Dil's Trucking Inc. which dealt with issues relating to bills of lading, undeclared values and contracts of carriage. The third case is Fernandes v. Araujo, which provides an update into the Ontario Court of Appeal's ongoing development of vicarious liability and motor vehicles in Ontario.

Today the Court of Appeal has released a decision that has significant consequences for insurers of heavy commercial vehicles, or for the insurers of vehicles that collide with motorcycles or motorized snow vehicles.

Read up on the decision of the appeal of Intact Insurance Company of Canada v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada and the findings...

Uber's most recent venture is UberCargo, a new program that ventures into the logistics business. The service allows users to call a van to transport large items for moving or for delivery purposes. UberCargo has only launched in Hong Kong, and at present seems to be geared mainly to business users for their logistical needs.

According to the Centre for Automotive Research, the first commercially available, fully autonomous vehicles could arrive on dealership floors as early as 2019.

In a decision Uber is calling a "victory for common sense", the UK High Court ruled that Uber was not in contravention of existing London regulations with respect to taxicab meters...

This paper addresses two important questions that are integral to determining whether a negligence action arises from the use and operation of a motor vehicle. Firstly, this paper seeks to determine whether a particular vehicle involved in an accident actually constitutes a motor vehicle.

Secondly, this paper seeks to determine what constitutes the use and operation of a motor vehicle.

The Court of Appeal released an important decision for all lawyers practicing in the field of civil litigation and personal injury, in particular.Iannarella v Corbett clarifies the onus of proof regarding liability in a rear-end collision and reinforces the ongoing disclosure obligations of surveillance throughout the litigation process.

Mary Carters and Pierrenger Agreements are types of agreements used in multi-defendant litigation. Both agreements involve settlement between the plaintiff, and some, but not all, of the defendants. In essence, they allow for actions to partially settle. While these agreements appear useful, the law concerning them (in particular, Mary Carters) is both complex and rapidly evolving.  Read the full case study and details on both...

January 31, 2015 saw the release of a class action certification involving the transportation industry. Continuing the trend of class actions seeking unpaid overtime, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a $100 million class action lawsuit for unpaid overtime against the defendant, Canada Cartage.

The statement of claim alleges Canada Cartage only paid overtime if the 60 hour threshold was exceeded, regardless of the type of employee, and that this policy was contrary to the regulations.

The plaintiff in this case had suffered a catastrophic brain injury as a result of a motor vehicle accident.

The parties disputed whether she had "incurred" expenses for attendant care services within the meaning of s.3(7)(e) and whether attendant care services can be provided indirectly by electronic means.

This decision will assist first party insurers in determining whether Applicants are entitled to attendant care.

Today the Ontario Court of Appeal released its long-awaited decision inMoore v. Getahun, dealing with significant issues in relation to the preparation and use of expert witness reports at trial, including the scope of permissible communications between counsel and expert witnesses.

Important case law has been released concerning when policies must respond in actions involving rented or leased vehicles. The question before Justice Firestone in Elias v. Koochek, 2014 ONSC 5003, was whether or not the policy of a renter would still rank in priority if the renter was a third party and not a defendant in the main action. 

In recent years there have been a number of developments in the law which have given rise to escalating damage awards. The focus of this paper is on the changes that have occurred with respect to I. Future Care Costs, II. Guardianship and Management Fees; and III. Risk Premiums.

This article explores the recent trend of general damages awards in chronic pain cases in Ontario. It breaks down the groundbreaking case of Degennaro, which remains the high watermark in these cases. It then looks to the recent case law to contextualize Degennaro andestablish a framework for understanding how courts arrive at these awards.

This paper provides an overview of the law of causation as it pertains to a plaintiff that suffers from chronic pain as the result of an injury. It will begin with an analysis of recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence regarding how a plaintiff can establish factual causation through the “but for” test. It will then provide an analysis of legal causation, which has also been referred to as “remoteness”. In the remoteness analysis, the paper will clarify when chronic pain can be considered a foreseeable injury, and discuss the principle of the “thin-skulled plaintiff”. It will conclude by exploring how the courts apportion damages when faced with pre-existing injuries, and in particular, the principle known as the “crumbling skull”.

Surveillance is a powerful tool in cases involving plaintiffs with chronic pain, because it can lend objectivity to a case rife with subjective reporting. 

Overall, the relative cost of surveillance evidence as compared to its benefit, often makes it a cost-effective tool in personal injury litigation.

There are, however, important rules that defence counsel must abide by when gathering surveillance. These disclosure requirements are discussed below, and they suggest that surveillance should be gathered and disclosed early in the litigation process in order to encourage early resolution of the matter, if at all possible.

The Final Report of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Anti-Fraud Task Force was released. This task force was appointed to advise the government of Ontario on the extent of automobile insurance fraud and what to do about it. Its findings were as follows:

Why would a settling defendant who has paid the plaintiff money ever want to remain in a lawsuit and incur the costs of going to trial? The fact that there are not many good answers to this question is the reason why Mary Carter agreements are rarely used except in high-exposure cases.

For practical purposes, the only two characteristics of a modern Mary Carter agreement are as follows:

In recent years, we have seen a tremendous increase in the size of awards that Canadian courts and juries are willing to grant plaintiffs for future cost of care. This head of damages, even prior to these recent cases, was already the largest component of a catastrophically impaired plaintiffs claim. The 2009 case of MacNeil v Bryan15 saw the largest award for future cost of care in Ontario’s history. The Superior Court of Justice in MacNeil made a total award of $18,427,207.20 to the plaintiff, a 15 year old female passenger in a vehicle that was involved in an accident that resulted in catastrophic injuries which included an open full frontal skull fracture with severe brain injuries, amongst other injures. The largest portion of the judgment was $15,158,500.00 awarded for future care costs. With this increase in the monetary compensation being provided to Canadian plaintiffs, special attention must be given to presenting a sound defence against inflated future care awards.

For those of you who self insure, let’s say the first million. For those of you who own fleets. For those insurers of cars and trucks. For everyone with an automobile policy of insurance. The following is a discussion of the stresses on the auto insurance product in Ontario.

In the decision of Vijeyekumar and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (1999) O.J. No. 2178 (C.A.), the deceased died of asphyxiation caused by carbon monoxide poisoning. He was found in his car, the engine was running and the hose had been attached to the exhaust pipe which ran to the front console inside the car beside the deceased. The deceased’s wife and daughter sued the deceased’s automobile insurer for death benefits under his automobile insurance policy. The Court of Appeal determined the applicable test was:

FSCO released the appeal decision in Belair Insurance Co. Inc. and Lenworth Scarlett. The decision by Director's Delegate David Evans overturned the preliminary issue hearing decision by Arbitrator Wilson, which found that the claimant was not subject to the minor injury guideline (the MIG).

The appeal sticks to evaluating individual points in Arbitrator Wilson's decision, and does not offer significant guidance on whether the MIG applies to individual claimants.

Read why this appeal decision is nevertheless favourable to insurers.

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently held in Siena-Foods Limited v. Old Republic Insurance, 2012 ONCA 583, that a lessor's automobile insurance policy may provide coverage for damage to a lessee's property. 

Siena-foods Limited (“Siena”) rented a truck from Ryder Canada (“Ryder”) to transport a food-packaging machine. The truck was involved in a head-on collision and the food-packaging machine was damaged. Siena sought compensation from Ryder's insurer, Old Republic, for recovery for the damaged machine.

Cargo theft: not a victimless crime. Cargo theft has become a widespread and major challenge for transportation industries in many countries around the world, including Canada. Cargo theft has its roots in a $65 billion Canadian industry—trucking is responsible for transporting 90% of all consumer products and foodstuffs as well as 75% of the goods traded with the USA. The trucking industry also employs hundreds of thousands of people. 

In Martin v. Fleming 2012 ONCA 750, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the Ontario Superior Court, to stack deductibles, where there are multiple accidents when there is a global assessment of damages.  

When an accident occurs, the typical liability issues arise. Upon receipt of a claim, insurers are prompted to consider a number of important questions. Such questions include whether the accident was a result of the action or inaction of the driver; what if anything could have been done to avoid the accident or mitigate the consequences; what kinds of contributing factors may have been at play (such as the road or weather conditions), among other considerations.

When an accident involving a transport truck or marine vessel occurs, there are also often cargo and fuel considerations and more specifically, environmental considerations relating to fuel and cargo spills. It is this very issue that some insurers have been failing to turn their minds to; more specifically, the environmental liability aspects of accidents that result in fuel or oil spills, both from trucks and ships.

This paper endeavours to elucidate some of the relevant statutes to consider when such an accident occurs and shed light on the appropriate steps an insurer ought to take upon receiving such claims.

Justice Murray of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held on August 23, 2011 that an assault during an attempted car-jacking qualified as an accident pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. A synopsis of this decision and its implications for the insurance industry was reported in the October 2011 edition of McCague Borlack's Transportation Newsletter.

The Personal Insurance Company appealed Justice Murray's ruling and, on May 9, 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned Justice Murray's decision, in part.

While the volume of Applications for Mediation being filed and the limited number of FSCO mediators available to handle them are the primary source of the problem, this article will address three factors that are exacerbating the problem.

The Ontario Court of Appeal released a decision on March 22, 2012, that deals with an insurer's alleged failure to settle a third party claim in a timely manner. The court decided that this claim for "bad faith" is not a breach of contract, but rather a breach of the independent duty to act in the utmost good faith.

Dundas v. Zurich Canada (2012 ONCA 181) involved a motor vehicle accident in which plaintiffs sued an at-fault motorist for an amount in excess of the insured's policy limits. Read why this case is important to the insurers...

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) came into force in 2005 with the goal of making Ontario completely accessible for persons with disabilities by January 2025. The AODA mandates the creation of standard development committees in five general areas: Customer Service, Transportation, Employment, Information and Communication and Built Environment.

To date, only the Customer Service Standard has been enacted, with the Accessibility Standards for Customer Service Regulation (CSS) coming into force on January 1, 2008. The CSS sets out the requirements for ensuring that providers of goods and services in Ontario have policies in place that accommodate the needs of customers with disabilities.

Starting on January 1, 2012, almost all businesses operating in Ontario will be required to comply with the CSS. The CSS applies to: 

An at-fault party may have no insurance or may be inadequately insured. Further, where an unidentified motorist is at-fault (as in the case of a hit-and-run) there may be no practical means of securing compensation for an injury as the at-fault party and his insurer may never be identified.

The system in Ontario has two mechanisms for dealing with such scenarios: 1. Uninsured / Unidentified Motorist coverage under s. 265 of the Insurance Act

The Ontario Superior Court rendered a decision in the case of Case v. Coseco Insurance Co.1 this case reviewed an array of issues, including the law regarding the vicarious liability of a motor vehicle owner for loss or damages sustained when the vehicle was in the possession of another person. The Court also delved into the oft-analyzed issue of consent; specifically, whether an owner of a vehicle can be found vicariously liable for giving consent to have possession of the vehicle, even though it expressly prohibits the other person from operating the vehicle.

In May the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the application for leave to appeal in Primmum Insurance Company v. Allstate Insurance Company.1 doing so it left standing the Ontario Court of Appeal decision confirming that the loss transfer provisions of the Ontario's Insurance Act will apply to all insurers, who are licensed to sell insurance in Ontario, regardless of where the policy was issued.

Since 2010, the Beasley case has been considered and distinguished by further caselaw, including the cases of Grigoroff v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. 1 and McNeill v. Filthaut 2.  Those cases provide alternate means by which a defendant can rely on the evidence of doctors retained by the no-fault insurers. 

We have chosen a few key topics that have been repeating themselves in conversations with our clients, adjusters, claims handlers and risk managers over the course of the past year. In the absence of any defining or guiding arbitral or court decisions arising from the 2010 Regulations, it has been an opportunity to think creatively with clients whether discussing what is needed to prove economic loss, or the effect of changes to loss transfer regulations. Following are some thoughts distilled from the past year.

In a personal injury action, the defence medical examination (“DME”) is the most potent tool that a defendant has to test and respond to a plaintiff’s allegations. Plaintiff counsel have increasingly been requesting, and receiving, court orders that DMEs be videotaped. This has naturally caused concern among defence counsel.

Black's Law Dictionary defines the collateral source-rule, also known as the collateral benefits rule, as “the doctrine that if an injured party receives compensation for the injuries from a source independent of the tortfeasor, the payment should not be deducted from the damages that the tortfeasor must pay.”1 Over time, this rule has evolved to allow tortfeasors and/or their insurers to deduct certain amounts already received by the plaintiff in order to ensure that the plaintiff does not receive double recovery.

What happens when an at-fault party has no insurance or may be inadequately insured. Or where an unidentified motorist is at-fault (as in the case of a hit-and-run) there may be no practical means of securing compensation for an injury as the at-fault party and his insurer may never be identified...  The system in Ontario has two mechanisms for dealing with such scenarios.

The claimant was hired to effect body work repairs to a truck that he normally operated. The claimant's last memory was standing on the hood of the truck. He was found the next morning in a pool of blood and awoke in the hospital a few days later. He had sustained serious fractures and a brain injury. Arbitrator Feldman inferred from the evidence that the claimant had fallen from the truck while attempting to effect repairs to the roof. Is this an accident as defined by the Schedule?

A driver was speeding along an under-construction roadway that transitioned from asphalt to loose gravel. The motorist's velocity greatly exceeded that of both temporary and permanent speed advisory signs. The driver ultimately lost control upon the gravel road and was tragically killed. The motorist's family sued the regional municipality and road maintenance company for allegedly failing in their duties to properly maintain the road. Who's at fault?

A plaintiff drove his vehicle into a gas station and was assaulted by multiple attackers while his engine remained running. The plaintiff was ultimately able to put his vehicle into gear and escape, but not before sustaining serious injuries. Worthy of note is that the plaintiff's insurer paid him $73,061.27 in accident benefits before taking the position that the plaintiff was not involved in an accident, consequently seeking repayment of all amounts paid. Is a car jacking considered an "accident"?

In Maccaroni v. Kelly (2011 ONCA 441), the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside an order dismissing an insured's action against her insurer, ING, for damages claimed pursuant to an OPCF 44R underinsured motorist endorsement. In this particular case, both the tortfeasor's insurance policy and the appellant's OPCF 44R endorsement had coverage limits of $1,000,000.00.

In the original action arising from the motor vehicle accident at issue, Co-operators General Insurance Company added itself as a statutory third party pursuant to s. 285 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. I.8. Co-operators took the position that its insured (the tortfeasor) was in breach of the statutory conditions of his policy and that, as a result, the insured's policy limits were reduced to $200,000.00 pursuant to s. 258(11) of the Insurance Act.

In McLinden v. Payne (2011 ONCA 439), the Ontario Court of Appeal considered whether s. 40(4) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule precludes a person from making more than one application for a determination that he or she suffered a catastrophic impairment.

In Jones v. Jenkins,1 an ING adjuster negotiated a settlement with a self-represented plaintiff. The plaintiff was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident, but had not commenced an action against ING's insured, who was allegedly at fault. ING's adjuster directly corresponded with the plaintiff, requesting settlement proposals and making counter-proposals until a final agreement of $19,411.00 was reached and a release was signed. The plaintiff subsequently retained counsel and a Statement of Claim was issued. The defendant and his insurers argued that the signed release barred the proceeding.

In Dominion of Canada v. Kingsway,¹ the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed an insurer’s duty to defend in cases where an insured’s policy limits have been exhausted. The facts were such that a defendant’s policy limits of $200,000.00 were offered and accepted at mediation on the condition that a plaintiff with Family Protection coverage through Dominion could pursue her underinsured claim against her own insurer. Dominion would then receive an assignment of the judgment and could pursue the defendant personally for contribution.

The case of Beasley and Scott v. Barrand,1 decided by Moore J.of the Ontario Superior Court, appears at first blush to be a bar to the use at trial by a tort defendant of expert reports commissioned by a no-fault insurer. However, rather than barring the use of such reports by tort defendants, a careful review of this case reveals that it provides guidance on the proper practice to be followed by defence counsel when they seek to do so.

In Ligocki v. Allianz Insurance Company of Canada, 2010 ONSC 1166,,the Ontario Superior Court, on February 22, 2010,  confirmed that a self-proclaimed "self-employed contractor" may be entitled to income replacement benefits calculated as an employee.

Primmum Insurance Company v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2010 ONSC 986, involved an application for the appointment of an arbitrator in respect of a loss transfer dispute between Primmum Insurance Company and Allstate Insurance Company.

Rougoor v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., 99 O.R. (3d) 139, involved an action which arose as a result of a dirt-bike incident that occurred in Florida. The appellant was insured under a standard automobile policy with the respondent. Her policy of insurance with the respondent, listed, among other family-owned vehicles, one off-road dirt bike of which she was listed as the principal driver. The appellant was also listed as a secondary driver for another off-road dirt bike under the same policy of insurance.

In ACE INA Insurance v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., 2009 CarswellOnt 1668 (Ont. S.C.J.), the claimant initially applied to the driver’s insurer, the Co-operators, for payment of accident benefits. However, the Co-operators took the matter to arbitration and argued that, under the “company car” provision, the claimant was a named insured under the ACE policy which made ACE solely responsible for his accident benefits claim. The arbitrator agreed with the Co-operators and ACE appealed the decision.

In Lockhard, the plaintiff Lockhard was injured in a single-vehicle accident when her vehicle was being driven by the defendant Quiroz with her consent. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff's vehicle was insured by the third party C.A.A. Insurance Co. (Ontario) ("CAA"). The plaintiff sued the driver for damages.

The plaintiff, in Tucci v. Pugliese, [2009] O.J. No. 2956, Maria Tucci, was seated in her kitchen when an uninsured motor vehicle driven by the defendant, Giuseppe Pugliese, ran into a wall of her house.  The collision caused a sudden, loud bang and violent shaking of the house, which allegedly caused tremendous shock to the plaintiff and inflicted damage to the home estimated at between $85,000 and $100,000...

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in  Keam v. Caddey, 2010 ONCA 565, has awarded plaintiffs $40, 000 in additional costs after an insurer refused to participate in mediation prior to trial. 

In the recent Ontario decision, Winckle v. Siodlowski, [2009] O.J. No. 4807 (Ont. S.C.J.)., Justice Hockin decided the applicability of the statutory deductible in a case where damages were assessed at exactly $100,000.

In Fourniev v. Coachman, the claimant was injured in an MVA on August 11, 2004.  He applied to Coachman Insurance for a determination of catastrophic impairment under the Schedule and Coachman concluded that he was not catastrophically impaired.  The parties applied for Arbitration since they were unable to resolve their dispute through mediation. The issue in dispute was whether the claimant suffered a catastrophic impairment...

Pastore v. Aviva, FSCO A04-002496, involved a claimant, Anna Pastore, who was a pedestrian involved in a motor vehicle accident on November 16, 2002. The matter proceeded to Arbitration on a number of issues including whether Ms. Pastore suffered a catastrophic impairment...

In recent years there have been a number of developments in the law which have given rise to escalating damage awards. The focus on this paper is on the changes that have occurred with respect to: Future Care Costs, guardianship and management fees, and risk premiums.