In Leduc v. Roman, Mr. Justice David M. Brown allowed in part an appeal from an order of Master Dash, dealing with the Facebook page of a plaintiff in a personal injury action. The Master had refused the defence motion,…
We are indebted to Mark (“Billy Idol”) Charron of Williams McEnery for alerting us to the recent decision in Peterson v. Phillips. This is another case that deals with the relationship between offers to settle in MVA claims and the…
In McCook v. Subramaniam, Master Ronald Dash considered whether to permit a plaintiff to add as a defendant his own auto insurer, under its underinsured motorist endorsement. The insurer resisted the motion on the basis that the plaintiff had not…
Mr. Justice John Cavarzan has held, in Lease Truck Inc. v. Serbinek, that a creditor of an insured is entitled to garnishment of income replacement benefits. Once it receives notice of the garnishment, the insurer paying the accident benefits is…
Corrigendum: Our reference to the Master’s consideration of an Alberta case, Thompson v. McCallum, erroneously contained the following passage: “The insurer suspected that the insured had, in fact, been the driver.” The sentence should read, “The insurer suspected that the plaintiff…
In Seegmiller v. Langer, Justice George R. Strathy reviewed the law with respect to when the owner of an automobile will be liable when someone else drives it and is involved in an accident. His reasons contain a useful review…
1044589 Ontario Inc. (Nantucket Business Centre) dealt with the frequently-litigated issue of the right of a landlord’s insurer to advance a subrogated claim against a tenant. Here, Madam Justice Ruth E. Mesbur held that the landlord’s insurer was entitled to…
[Addendum: This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on August 21, 2009.] Ontario auto insurers might be surprised to learn that the Insurance Act and the standard auto policy do not require persons claiming against the uninsured motorist coverage to pursue anyone whose negligence…
This afternoon, the Court of Appeal released its decision in AXA Insurance v. Ani-Wall Concrete Forming. (We previously commented here on the decision of Perell J. from which the appeal was taken.) The issue in the case was whether Ani-Wall…
Nissan v. McNamee is, so far as we know, the first decision to interpret the “gloss” on the Insurance Act threshold that was enacted by regulation O.Reg. 381/03 (the package of legislative changes commonly referred to as “Bill 198”). The regulation took effect on…