Malhotra v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
The motion judges acted within their discretion in appointing a single umpire under s.128; nothing in s.128 forbids a single umpire for multiple properties, and the appellant failed to file affidavit evidence or identify any error, so the appeals are dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2013 ONCA 326
- Parties
- Appellant: Veena Malhotra; Respondent: State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 17 May 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeals dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Appointment of Umpire, Section 128 Insurance Act, Discretionary Relief, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Veena Malhotra
Appellant
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court may appoint a single umpire under s.128 of the Insurance Act to deal with multiple properties
- 2 Whether the motion judges erred in appointing the proposed umpire(s)
- 3 Whether the appellant's failure to file affidavit evidence undermines her challenge to the appointments
Ratio Decidendi
The motion judges acted within their discretion in appointing a single umpire under s.128; nothing in s.128 forbids a single umpire for multiple properties, and the appellant failed to file affidavit evidence or identify any error, so the appeals are dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeals dismissed.
Orders
- Appeals dismissed.
- Costs to the respondent in the total amount of $5,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Malhotra v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2013-05-17 Neutral citation 2013 ONCA 326 Docket numbers C54793, C56509 Judges Simmons, Janet M.; Hoy, Alexandra; Strathy, George R. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Malhotra v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 2013 ONCA 326 DATE: 20130516 DOCKET: C54793/C56509 Simmons, Hoy and Strathy JJ.A. BETWEEN Veena Malhotra Appellant and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Respondent Veena Malhotra, acting in person Terry J. Tustin, for the respondent Heard: May 13, 2013 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Harrison S. Arrell of the Superior Court of Justice dated November 29, 2011 and on appeal from the judgment of Justice Theresa Maddalena of the Superior Court of Justice dated August 6, 2009. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The two orders under appeal relate to the appointment of a single umpire under s. 128 of the Insurance Act in relation to five properties owned by the appellant. [2] We see no basis on which to interfere with either order. The power to appoint an umpire, or umpires, under s. 128 is discretionary. Nothing in s. 128 prohibits the court from appointing a single umpire to deal with multiple properties. [3] The appellants did not file affidavit evidence on either motion to challenge the umpires proposed by State Farm. On appeal, the appellant has not identified any form of error on the part of either motion judge that would justify interfering with their exercise of discretion. [4] The appeals are therefore dismissed. [5] The costs of both appeals are to the respondent in the total amount of $5,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.