Damages for accelerated depreciation from tortfeasor are not recoverable under Ontario's no-fault insurance scheme

Ontario’s no-fault insurance scheme precludes a vehicle owner from recovering damages for accelerated depreciation from the tortfeasor who is responsible for damaging the said vehicle. A party cannot rely on the law of bailment to circumvent the no-fault scheme where the true cause of action is in tort.

Keyhani v. Downsview Chrysler Toronto, [2016] O.J. No. 20, Court File No. SC-13-24083-0000, Ontario Superior Court of Justice - Small Claims Court, Toronto, Ontario, January 4, 2014, J.C.F. Hunt Deputy J.

Continue Reading...

Ontario Court of Appeal granted relief from forfeiture to insureds from non-compliance with statutory reporting requirements

Statutory reporting requirements under Ontario's Uninsured Automobile Coverage Regulation are not conditions precedent akin to limitation periods. The Courts may grant relief from forfeiture to insureds who have failed to comply with these requirements.

Dams v. TD Home and Auto Insurance Co., [2016] O.J. No. 26, 2016 ONCA 4, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 6, 2016, R.A. Blair, C.W. Hourigan, and D.M. Brown

Continue Reading...

"Faulty workmanship" exclusion didn't apply for resulting damage

The exception for resulting damage was read in to the exclusion clause for “the cost of faulty workmanship” where the exclusion clause was silent on the resulting damage.

Monk v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co. (Lindsay), [2015] O.J. No. 6849, 2015 ONCA 911, Ontario Court of Appeal, December 23, 2015, K.N. Feldman, E.A. Cronk and G. Huscroft JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Contractual one year limitation period in an insurance policy was deemed enforceable

A contractual one year limitation period which began to run from the date the "loss or damage" occurred applied to bar an insured's action against an insurer seeking a declaration that it owed the insured a defence.

Daverne v. John Switzer Fuels Ltd., [2015] O.J. No. 6853, 2015 ONCA 919, Ontario Court of Appeal, December 24, 2015, A. Hoy A.C.J.O., J.L. MacFarland and P.D. Lauwers JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

Marketability of a property is affected by municipal work orders even if they are not registered against title of the property

Municipal work orders do not need to be registered against title to affect the marketability of the property.

MacDonald v. Chicago Title Insurance Co. of Canada, [2015] O.J. No. 6350, December 3, 2015, Ontario Court of Appeal, E.A. Cronk, C.W. Hourigan, M.L. Benotto JJ.A. Continue Reading...

Allegation of negligence for failing to hire a competent contractor to remove trees from recreational property fell within coverage for

The insureds applied for a declaration that their insurer had a duty to defend them in an action where the plaintiff was injured by a tree that was being removed on an uninsured property owned by the insureds. The court found the insurer had a duty to defend the insureds because the true nature of the allegation that the insureds were negligent for failing to hire a competent contractor was a claim arising out of the actions of an individual and was covered under the insured's homeowner's policy which provided coverage for "personal actions anywhere in the world."

Hill v. Intact Insurance Co., [2015] O.J. No. 5898, November 10, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Ottawa, Ontario, P.E. Roger J.

Continue Reading...

Location of automobile insurance policy is not a factor that satisfies the real and substantial jurisdictional connection test

The plaintiff appealed a jurisdictional ruling which found no real and substantial connection between the parties, the accident in which the plaintiff was injured and Ontario. A five‑judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed Tamminga v. Tamminga, 2014 ONCA 478, which stands for the principle that a plaintiff's Ontario automobile insurance policy is not a factor that satisfies the real and substantial connection test.

Forsythe v. Westfall, [2015] O.J. No. 6134, December 29, 2015, Ontario Court of Appeal, E.E. Gillese, R.A. Blair, J.L. MacFarland, S.E. Pepall and M.L. Benotto JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

An additional insured under a commercial general liability policy was entitled to a defence in a claim in which the allegations of negligence against it and the named insured were the same.

Dufferin Construction Co., a Division of Holcim (Canada) Inc. v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance, 2015 ONSC 6311, October 13, 2015, Ontario Supreme Court of Justice, C.J. Brown J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer who agrees to provide coverage for malicious prosecution has effectively contracted out of the fortuity principle and it should not be applied so as to preclude coverage the insurer agreed to provide.

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. The Sovereign General Insurance Company, 2015 ONCA 702, October 22, 2015, Court of Appeal for Ontario, G.J. Epstein, S.E. Pepall and M.L. Benotto JJ.A.

Continue Reading...

The dismissal of an insurer's subrogated claim against an unnamed insured was upheld on appeal.

Rochon v. Rochon, 2015 ONCA 746, November 6, 2015, Court of Appeal for Ontario, J.M. Simmons, G.J. Epstein and G.I. Pardu JJ.A.

Continue Reading...