The Plaintiff’s claims against the Attorney General of Canada, his Insurer and various other parties was dismissed by way of Summary Judgment after the Court found that the Release executed between the Plaintiff and his Insurer precluded commencing an action against a non-party to the Release in which a claim-over could be made against the Releasee. Accordingly, the Defendants’ motion for Summary Judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claims and the cross-claims was granted.

05. December 2005 0
Radvar v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] O.J. No. 5239, Ontario Superior Court of Justice

The Ontario Court of Appeal held that one co-insured could not unilaterally cancel or delete the coverage of the other co-insured under the automobile insurance policy. The majority held that for the cancellation or deletion by one co-insured to be effective against the other co-insured, the insurer had to give fifteen days prior notice of that cancellation or deletion to, and obtain the express or implied consent of, the other co-insured.

28. November 2005 0
Transportaction Lease Systems Inc. v. Guarantee Co. of North America, [2005] O.J. No. 5036, Ontario Court of Appeal

In order to obtain survivor benefits under a motor vehicle policy issued by the Saskatchewan Government Insurance Company for the death of a former spouse, the surviving spouse must prove that there is a valid spousal agreement in place at the time of the deceased’s death. An obligation to pay spousal support is not sufficient to entitle the surviving spouse to benefits.

17. November 2005 0
Falasca (Litigation Guardian of) v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance, [2005] S.J. No. 802, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the life insurance policy was not in effect at the time of the deceased’s death due to a change in the deceased’s insurability between the time the application was completed and the time the policy was delivered. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in finding that there was no conflict between subsection 142(1)(c) of the Saskatchewan Insurance Act and the proviso in the policy.

17. November 2005 0
Anderson v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, [2005] S.J. No. 708, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

The British Columbia Provincial Court found that the cause of loss was the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. The Court held that the definition of “comprehensive coverage” in Regulation 447/83 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act was not exhaustive. As such, negligence as a cause of loss or damage was included in the “comprehensive coverage”.

14. November 2005 0
Pfleger v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2005] B.C.J. No. 2482, British Columbia Provincial Court