Canada Case Law

Rodriguez-Vergara v. Lamoureux

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The OPCF 44R endorsement is excess to motor vehicle liability insurance only and therefore, after the at-fault vehicle's $300,000 third-party liability limit is paid, the OPCF 44R (RSA) stands in priority before the defendant's PLUP; the OPCF 44R insurer may not deduct PLUP amounts from its payment nor pursue a third-party claim against the at-fault insurer Certas or subrogate against Certas to recover OPCF 44R payouts; appeal dismissed and motion judge's priority ruling and related orders upheld.

Source excerpt

• Underinsured motorist coverage
• Priority of insurance coverages
• Family protection endorsement opcf 44r
• Personal umbrella liability policy (plup)
• Subrogation
• Third-party claims

Read case analysis

Garcia v. Gill

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed an interlocutory appeal about excluded disbursements under the Regulation, refused fresh evidence, and awarded costs to the respondents.

• Disbursements and expert evidence regulation
• Excluded disbursements under s.5(6)
• Admission of fresh evidence on appeal
• Judicial notice
• Litigation privilege
• Standard of review - correctness

Read case analysis

Singh v. Liske

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Trial judgment on motor vehicle injuries: the court found accident-related physical and psychiatric harm, reduced some claims for pre-existing issues, and awarded damages.

• Somatic symptom disorder
• Adjustment disorder
• Post-accident psychiatric injury
• Loss of earning capacity
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Cost of future care

Read case analysis

van Tol v. Rodway

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found the motor vehicle accidents caused soft tissue injuries that developed into fibromyalgia and central sensitization, but not the vision complaints.

• Non-pecuniary damages
• Loss of earning capacity
• Mitigation
• Causation
• Fibromyalgia
• Chronic pain

Read case analysis

Park v. Shepheard

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Liability was admitted in this motor vehicle accident case, and the court awarded damages of $98,406.11 after reducing non-pecuniary damages and rejecting loss of earning capacity.

• Non-pecuniary damages
• Loss of earning capacity
• Future care costs
• Causation
• Credibility
• Surveillance evidence

Read case analysis

Skunk v. Ketash

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The wording of s.265(2) of the Insurance Act and the identical policy endorsements is clear and unambiguous: an "uninsured automobile" does not include a vehicle owned by or registered in the name of the insured or the insured's spouse; that exclusion applies even where the vehicle was taken without consent by an uninsured driver, so no uninsured automobile or family protection coverage was available and dismissal was proper.

Source excerpt

• Uninsured automobile definition
• Family protection coverage (opcf 44r)
• Insurance act s.265(2) interpretation
• Rule 21.01 motion to dismiss

Read case analysis

Kelly v. Kotz

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court awarded damages for neck, upper back and headache injuries from an admitted-liability collision, but rejected the hamstring claim and loss of earning capacity.

• Non-pecuniary damages
• Causation
• Future care costs
• Special damages
• Loss of earning capacity
• Housekeeping capacity

Read case analysis

Musgrove v. Elliot

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held Rule 15-1 applied to both motor vehicle actions, found the plaintiff had acquiesced in fast-track treatment, and awarded $11,000 costs in each action.

• Rule 15-1 fast track litigation
• Consent and acquiescence
• Lump sum costs
• Discovery time limits
• Consolidated trials
• Costs discretion

Read case analysis

Sandhu v. Roy

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court granted consolidation and said the fast-track trial date was too short, with removal from Rule 15-1 and adjournment to take effect if liability was not settled within 14 days.

• Fast track litigation rule 15-1
• Consolidation
• Trial scheduling and adjournment
• Liability dispute
• Trial management conference
• Costs of application

Read case analysis

Patriquin v. Great Lakes Forest Products

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal is dismissed: under Standard OAP1 Policy s.1.4 the insured's failure to notify the addition of a driver who increased the risk authorized the insurer to deny the claim; the appellant's submission that the insurer must void or cancel the policy rather than deny coverage was rejected as unsupported in principle, policy wording, legislation or jurisprudence.

Source excerpt

• Non-disclosure
• Material change in risk
• Denial of coverage
• Policy interpretation
• Costs

Read case analysis