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...

A pedestrian who was injured in a hit and run accident was not entitled to coverage under the unidentified automobile provisions of her own automobile policy because she was not an “occupant” of a vehicle at the time she was injured.

Ostrowercha v. Co-Operators General Insurance Co., 2015 ABQB 636, October 15, 2015, Alberta Court of Queens Bench, S.M. Sanderman J.

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...

Indemnity was extended to the badly injured driver of a motor vehicle after an intoxicated passenger intentionally grabbed the steering wheel, causing the vehicle to crash because the word “use” in the legislation included use by a passenger while the vehicle was being used as a motor vehicle.

Felix v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2015 B.C.J. No. 2024, September 23, 2015, Court of Appeal for British Columbia, E.A. Bennett, M.E. Saunders and S.S. Stromberg-Stein JJ.A.

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...

The insured was not in breach of his insurance policy when he crashed his vehicle into a restaurant after consuming a bowl of Kava (a traditional Fijian drink). There was insufficient evidence to prove that a single bowl of Kava would cause the symptoms experienced by the insured. The insured did not provide a false statement by saying he had not consumed drugs in the 12 hours prior to the accident.

Venkataya v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2015] B.C.J. No. 1896, September 3, 2015, British Columbia Supreme Court, P.G. Voith J.

Continue Reading...

The plaintiff’s damages for mileage costs for using her vehicle to travel to and from medical and necessary physical therapy appointments as well as the cost of the plaintiff’s attendance at a pain program were deducted from her damages award as these amounts qualified for no fault benefits.

Park v. Targonski, [2015] B.C.J. No. 1857, August 28, 2015, British Columbia Supreme Court, G.J. Fitch J.

Continue Reading...

An Extra-provincial Insurer has no Right to bring a Subrogated Claim to Recover Amounts Paid

An extra provincial insurer has no express statutory right of subrogation under the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and cannot bring a subrogated claim to recover the amounts it paid to its insureds in respect of a motor vehicle accident occurring in British Columbia.

Middleton v. Heerlein, [2015] B.C.J. No. 1524, July 17, 2015, British Columbia Supreme Court, R. Johnston J.

Continue Reading...