Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court found Gary Gleeson solely liable for a collision at a signalized intersection after concluding he entered on red and failed to stop on amber.
The Supreme Court held that a tree-fall death involving a person using a vehicle for transportation fell within Quebec’s no-fault automobile insurance scheme, barring the civil action.
Applying Kanda factors and Sault Ste. Marie, s.6(1) is a strict liability offence subject to a due diligence/reasonable belief defence; the application judge did not err in finding on the evidence that Nagraj had an honest and reasonable belief his BAC was zero and that Gurmeet did not know and had no reason to know he was unauthorized to drive; the application judge properly discounted and limited weight of the toxicology expert because his opinion relied on incorrect/incomplete facts; accordingly RBC failed to prove exclusion of coverage and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Liability-only trial over a collision at 121st Street and 64th Avenue. The court accepted Brar’s account and held Minosky 100% at fault for failing to yield.
While the vehicle's use satisfied the low-threshold purpose test (it was used as a motor vehicle to transport passengers and guns), the causation test failed because the shooting was a distinct intervening act severable from the use/operation of the vehicle; therefore the OPCF 44R Endorsement does not apply and insurer need not indemnify.
Source excerpt
The policy and surrounding circumstances show the named co-insureds were severally insured; one co-insured cannot unilaterally cancel or delete coverage as to another co-insured. For a deletion by one co-insured to be effective against another, the insurer had to give fifteen days prior written notice to, and obtain the express or implied consent of, the affected co-insured; Guarantee breached its contractual obligations and must indemnify Transportaction.
Source excerpt
The Court held Justice Wright applied the correct test and did not err in refusing to strike Noble’s third party claim because the claim was not plainly and obviously unsustainable given unresolved issues of statutory and policy interpretation (Tortfeasors Act, Civil Procedure Rule 17.02 and clause 5 Section D of the Standard Automobile Policy) that ought to be determined at trial; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
Source excerpt
On the facts the driver had implied consent to operate the vehicle; the SEF 28 endorsement does not exclude the named person from coverage entirely but reduces his third party liability coverage to the statutory minimum of $200,000, therefore insurer remains liable to that limit.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the named insured was not liable to reimburse the insurer, but the unnamed insured who drove intoxicated was liable under the Insurance Act.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an appeal on whether a driver was covered under an indemnity clause requiring the lessee’s consent to drive.
Explore more
