The defendants brought a summary judgment application to have the plaintiff’s action dismissed as barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, on the basis the plaintiff’s action was commenced two years and 21 days after the motor vehicle accident at issue. The court dismissed the defendants’ limitation defence on the basis the plaintiff did not subjectively nor objectively know that her injuries were permanent in the 21-day period after the accident.

17. March 2015 0
Insurance law – Automobile insurance – Policies and insurance contracts – Limitation of actions – Statutory provisions – Running of limitation period – Discoverability Zhu v. Matadar, [2015] O.J. No. 78, 2015 ONSC 178, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 8, 2015, P.M. Perell J. The plaintiff was injured in a three-car motor vehicle accident ...

Summary judgment application to determine the meaning of the word “load” in the following exclusion clause: “The weight of the load exceeding the registered lifting or supporting capacity of any machine.” The insured owned an articulating boom lift that was damaged when the operator used the boom in an attempt to lever the lift out of mud in which it was stuck. The court concluded the word “load” meant more than the weight in the manbasket and would include external resistance being applied to the lift or overall force to which the lift was being subjected. Accordingly, the exclusion clause was engaged and the insured’s claim was dismissed.

17. March 2015 0
Insurance law – All-risk insurance – Interpretation of policy – Exclusions – Load – Definition Aspen Interiors Inc. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [2015] S.J. No. 25, 2015 SKQB 3, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, January 5, 2015, R.S. Smith J. The insured and the insurer sought a determination of the applicability of an exclusion ...

The plaintiff appealed a jurisdictional ruling which found no real and substantial connection between the parties, the accident in which the plaintiff was injured and Ontario. A five judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed Tamminga v. Tamminga, 2014 ONCA 478, which stands for the principle that a plaintiff’s Ontario automobile insurance policy is not a factor that satisfies the real and substantial connection test.

19. January 2015 0
Insurance law – Automobile insurance – Practice – Jurisdiction – Location of contract – Unidentified motorist – Statutory provisions Forsythe v. Westfall, [2015] O.J. No. 6134, 2015 ONCA 810, Ontario Court of Appeal, November 24, 2015, E.E. Gillese, R.A. Blair, J.L. MacFarland, S.E. Pepall and M.L. Benotto JJ.A. The plaintiff was a passenger on a ...