Machin v. Tomlinson

Machin v. Tomlinson

Issue estoppel did not apply because the respondent (tortfeasor) was not a privy of the insured's insurer: the statutory arbitration scheme expressly permits alternative proceedings and does not give the tortfeasor a right to participate; the insurer and tortfeasor lacked a sufficient identity of interest to justify...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
C33596
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Eduardo Machin; Plaintiff (appellant): Patricia Machin; Plaintiff (appellant): Edward Richard Machin; Plaintiff (appellant Minor Represented by Litigation Guardian): Bryan Machin (by Litigation Guardian Patricia Machin); Defendant (respondent): Peter C. Tomlinson
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (tort and Statutory Accident Benefits) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Trial Judgment of Justice Archibald Dated December 24, 1999
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment below set aside; issue estoppel does not apply; appellants and Family Law Act claimants are not bound by arbitrator Makepeace's findings
Legal Topics
Statutory Accident Benefits, Issue Estoppel, Privity, Arbitration, Collateral Source Rule
Source Language
english
Insurance Law Tort Civil Procedure Administrative Law Statutory Accident Benefits Issue Estoppel Privity Arbitration +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eduardo Machin

Plaintiff (appellant)

Patricia Machin

Plaintiff (appellant)

Edward Richard Machin

Plaintiff (appellant)

Bryan Machin (by Litigation Guardian Patricia Machin)

Plaintiff (appellant Minor Represented by Litigation Guardian)

Peter C. Tomlinson

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (tort and Statutory Accident Benefits) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Trial Judgment of Justice Archibald Dated December 24, 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether findings of an SAB arbitrator on causation are binding in a subsequent tort action against a third party
  2. 2 Whether issue estoppel applies to statutory arbitration decisions
  3. 3 Whether the tortfeasor is a privy of the insured's insurer for purposes of issue estoppel

Ratio Decidendi

Issue estoppel did not apply because the respondent (tortfeasor) was not a privy of the insured's insurer: the statutory arbitration scheme expressly permits alternative proceedings and does not give the tortfeasor a right to participate; the insurer and tortfeasor lacked a sufficient identity of interest to justify binding the tortfeasor by the arbitrator's findings, therefore the arbitrator's findings on causation are not binding in the subsequent tort action.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment below set aside; issue estoppel does not apply; appellants and Family Law Act claimants are not bound by arbitrator Makepeace's findings

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and judgment of Archibald J. set aside
  • Issue estoppel declared inapplicable; arbitrator Makepeace's findings on causation are not binding in the tort action