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...

The legal causation test for statutory accident benefits is the "but for" test

Despite language indicative of the "material contribution" causation test, the legal causation test for statutory accident benefits is the "but for" test.

Kozhikhov v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2015] B.C.J. No. 2785, 2015 BCCA 515, British Columbia Court of Appeal, December 17, 2015, M.E. Saunders, D.M. Smith, and A.W. MacKenzie JJ.A.

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...

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...