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...

Regulation capping benefits for attendant care services provided by a family member at economic loss sustained by that family member did not apply retrospectively.

Davis v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., 2015 ONSC 6624, October 27, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice,E. Quinlan J.

Continue Reading...

A snow plow was held to be a “heavy commercial vehicle” for the purposes of the Ontario loss transfer provisions. Use of the phrase “and includes” in the applicable regulation expanded the types of automobiles captured under section.

Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. v. Aviva Canada Inc., [2015] O.J. No. 5153, October 6, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, C.J. Brown J.

Continue Reading...

The plaintiff insured was involved in an accident while riding a newly-acquired motorcycle. He sued his insurers for failing to provide coverage for his injuries, and his insurance brokers for advising him that the motorcycle was covered under his insurance policy. The insurers, but not the brokers, brought a motion under Rule 20 for summary judgment. The Judge found that he could not make the necessary findings of fact to fairly adjudicate the issues, particularly in light of the fact that the insurance brokers had not provided evidence on the application. The motion was dismissed.

Jeliazov v. John Doe, [2015] O.J. No. 4988, September 28, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Firestone J.

Continue Reading...

An insurer was obligated to pay for the increased cost of repairs due to the additional work required under the Building Code.  The relevant exclusion clause did not apply because it only excluded repairs relating to "by-laws" and the Building Code was not considered a "by-law".

Choukair v. Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada, [2015] O.J. No. 4361, August 20, 2015, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M.J. Quigley J.

Continue Reading...