Ontario Insurance Law Blog

Advancing a claim for Contribution and Indemnity as Equitable Set-off

2012-01-25T11:00:00.000-05:00

Goma v. Raghunanan [2011] O.J. No. 4916

Motion to amend Statement of Defence

This was a very clever motion by defendant’s counsel to add a claim for contribution and indemnity where the limitation period to start a counterclaim had passed.

This case involves a motor vehicle accident where there were two injured plaintiffs, the driver and a passenger. The defendants pleaded contributory negligence against the driver but neglected to counterclaim for contribution and indemnity against the passenger for her injuries.

When they realized the oversight, the plaintiff’s refused to consent to adding a counterclaim; the limitation period to counterclaim had passed.

The defendants decided to bring a motion to amend the statement of defence to add a claim for equitable set-off against the plaintiff. They assert that the s.18(1) Limitations Act limitation period does not apply.

Master Dash was bound by the decisive statements of a superior court, which held that claims for equitable set-off are not subject to limitation periods. See Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Pierce Estate, [2005] O.J. No. 1886, 197 O.A.C. (C.A.) and Spiral Aviation Training Co. v. Attorney General of Canada, 2010 ONSC 2581.

However, after examining the test for equitable set-off and the case law presented by counsel, Master Dash held that the defendant’s could not meet the test. Specifically, the claim for contribution does not go to the root of the plaintiff’s claim for damages.

He concluded that a defendant cannot claim contribution and indemnity against one plaintiff for damages awarded to another plaintiff by pleading equitable set-off in the statement of defence; this must be done by counterclaim, and the defendants were out of time to advance a counterclaim.

Rule 26.01 allows for amendments that are “legally tenable”. Amendments must be granted “unless the claim is clearly impossible of success”. Master Dash determined that because the claim for equitable set-off cannot succeed, the motion must be denied.

- Alison McBurney

Limitation Period Expired – Discoverability Principle Not Applicable

2012-01-18T11:00:00.000-05:00

In Muirhead v. Coulas [2011] OJ No. 4908 (S.C.J.), the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the action as statute barred. The action arose from a slip and fall in July 2005 and a claim was not commenced until July 2010.

The plaintiffs took the position that the limitation period did not begin to run until June or November 2009 when two medical opinions were received following another slip and fall in February 2006 when the plaintiff injured her same knee. They claimed that it was not until they received these reports that they discovered the 2005 injuries were ongoing and permanent.

The defendants took the position that there was no issue with respect to discoverability as the plaintiff knew she hurt her knee and she underwent surgery on her knee three days later and was unable to work for several months following.

Justice Mackinnon held that the defendants met their initial burden as they had led evidence that the plaintiff knew of her injury, it was serious enough to require surgery, she could not walk for two months after, she still had pain and restriction in movement six months later and had not been able to return to work by then. Justice Mackinnon also relied on section 5(2) of the Limitations Act , 2002 which sets out a presumption that a plaintiff has the requisite knowledge as of the day the act took place, “unless the contrary is proved”.

Addressing the plaintiffs’ submission that a proceeding would not have been an appropriate means to remedy the injury sustained as the plaintiff believed her injuries were resolving and would not be permanent, Justice Mackinnon stated that section 5(1)(a)(iv) “does not amount to a bar to an action for recovery in tort” and held that the cause of action was complete, even if the complete extent of damages was not fully known.

Justice Mackinnon agreed with the plaintiffs’ submission that an individual should not be required to commence an action where there is no reasonable prospect of recovery, but found there to be no such facts in the case at hand.
In response to the plaintiffs’ submission that the true nature of the loss from the 2005 slip and fall was not knowable until after the second incident, Justice Mackinnon held that the plaintiff clearly had a claim arising from the first incident and “the facts learned subsequently that the injury was permanent and contributed to her current severe condition may have been a basis to increase the quantum of damages sought but is not a new or different claim”.

Lastly, the plaintiffs attempted to rely on cases that extended the running of the limitation period because a medical opinion was required in order to know whether a cause of action existed. Justice Mackinnon pointed out that in all of these cases, the court had referred to the requirement that the plaintiff acted with due diligence in acquiring facts in order to be fully apprised of all material facts upon which a negligence claim can be based, including being diligent in requesting and receiving a medical opinion, if required. The plaintiffs in this case did not provide evidence as to why they did not seek out the medical reports sooner that were ultimately obtained in 2009. Also, there was evidence to suggest that there was an operative report available in March of 2007 that the plaintiffs did not request until later.

It was held that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

- Kristen Dearlove, Student-at-Law

Summary Judgment - Costs

2012-01-11T11:00:00.000-05:00

We continue our discussion of the Court of Appeal's decision in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, 2011 ONCA 764.

The former r. 20 provided that a party that was unsuccessful on a summary judgment motion was liable to pay substantial indemnity costs. The 2010 amendments eliminated the presumption of substantial indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal commented on the costs rule as follows:

[67] As a result of the amendments to rule 20.06, the onus is now on the party seeking substantial indemnity costs to convince the court that the other side acted unreasonably or in bad faith for the purpose of delay in bringing or responding to a motion for summary judgment. This amendment removes a disincentive to litigants from using Rule 20 by eliminating the presumption that they will face substantial indemnity costs for bringing an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment. However, as the jurisprudence becomes more settled on when it is appropriate to move for summary judgment, the reasonableness of the decision to move for summary judgment or to resist such a motion will be more closely scrutinized by the court in imposing cost orders under rule 20.06.

It seems that this paragraph suggests that courts will revert back to substantial indemnity costs as a body of case law develops. This will be an important consideration when deciding whether to bring a summary judgment motion or not.

- Tara Pollitt

Summary Judgment - Simplified Rules

2012-01-04T11:00:00.001-05:00

This is our third post on the Court of Appeal's decision in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, 2011 ONCA 764.

The Court seems to suggest that summary judgment may not be appropriate generally in Simplified Rules actions. The Court stated that although in appropriate cases, a motion for summary judgment in a r. 76 action may be a useful tool to promote the efficient disposition of cases, "it will often be the case that bringing a motion for summary judgment will conflict with the efficiency that can be achieved by simply following the abridged procedures in Rule 76." The Court held that summary judgment in r. 76 cases should be discouraged where there is competing evidence from multiple witnesses, the evaluation of which would benefit from cross-examination, or where oral evidence is clearly needed to decide certain issues. In many cases, the better course is to proceed to a speedy trial.

The Court did qualify its comments by indicating that it was not stating that summary judgment could never be used in Simplified Rules actions; in a document driven case, or in a case where there is limited contested evidence, both the full appreciation test and the efficiency rationale may be served by granting summary judgment in a simplified procedure action.

Given the Court's comments, it would seem that few summary judgment motions will be brought in Simplified Procedure actions.

- Tara Pollitt

Happy Holidays

2011-12-28T11:00:00.000-05:00

Happy holidays from the Ontario Insurance Law Blog! Thanks for your support and we hope you continue to enjoy the blog in the new year. See you in 2012!

Summary Judgment - Oral Evidence

2011-12-21T11:00:00.001-05:00

In this post, we continue our discussion of the Court of Appeal's decision in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, 2011 ONCA 764.

Rule 20.04(2.2) permits a judge to hear oral evidence on a summary judgment motion. The Court provided guidance on when this discretion may be exercised.

The Court held that a party that moves for summary judgment must be in a position to present a case capable of being decided on a paper record. The motions judge can decide if he or she requires viva voce evidence under r. 20.04(2.2). The purpose of the rule is not to allow a party to enhance the record it has put before the court.

An order for oral evidence will generally be appropriate where the judge concludes the exercise of powers under r. 20.04(2.1) will be facilitated by hearing oral evidence of a limited number of witnesses on one or more specific, discrete and likely determinative issues.

An order under r. 20.04(2.2) may be appropriate where:

(1) Oral evidence can be obtained from a small number of witnesses and gathered in a manageable period of time;
(2) Any issue to be dealt with by presenting oral evidence is likely to have a
significant impact on whether the summary judgment motion is granted; and
(3) Any such issue is narrow and discrete – i.e., the issue can be separately decided and is not enmeshed with other issues on the motion.

- Tara Pollitt

Court of Appeal comments on the new summary judgment rule

2011-12-14T11:00:00.000-05:00

The Court of Appeal has now released its decision regarding the new summary judgment rule. The appeal was heard before a five panel Court and pertained to five action. It is released under the name Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, 2011 ONCA 764.

The Court held that there are three types of cases that are amenable to summary judgment:

1. Where the parties agree it is appropriate to determine an action by way of summary judgment (para. 41);
2. Claims or defences that are shown to have no merit (para. 42); and
3. Where the trial process is not required in the interest of justice (para. 44).

It is not necessary for the judge to categorize the type of of case in question. In fact, the Court held that the latter two types of cases are not to be viewed as discrete compartments.

The test for summary judgment is the "full appreciation test". The motions judge must ask "can the full appreciation of the evidence and issues that is required to make dispositive findings be
achieved by way of summary judgment, or can this full appreciation only be achieved by
way of a trial?" (para. 50). In cases that call for multiple findings of facts emanating from a number of witnesses and found in a voluminous record, summary judgment is not a substitute for the trial process. On the other hand, the full appreciation test may be met in document-driven cases with limited testimonial evidence, cases with limited contentious factual issues or where the record can be supplemented to the requisite degree at the motion judge's direction by hearing oral evidence on discrete issues.

It remains to be seen how this will impact summary judgment motions going forward. Are judges going to be more reluctant to grant summary judgment?

- Tara Pollitt

Occupier’s Liability S.4(4)(f): Recreational Trail

2011-12-07T11:00:00.000-05:00

In Turner v. Kitchener (City) [2011] O.J. No. 4803, the plaintiff was riding his bike along a recreational trail in Kitchener. It was his regular route and time of travel which put him on the trail at 5:15 am.

Earlier that day vandals had set fire to a bridge along the trail and after investigating, the police and fire personnel had blocked off the bridge with a wooden barricade and yellow caution tape.

The plaintiff was biking at a relatively high speed for the time of morning, was wearing a helmet but did not have any light affixed to his bike. As the plaintiff approached the barricade, he was not able to see it, and when he did notice it is was too late to stop safely. The plaintiff applied his brakes so hard that he flipped over the bike and suffered injuries.

In this case, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant acted with “reckless disregard” towards him.

The trail is a “recreational trail”, so that s.4(4)(f) of the Occupier’s Liability Act (“Act”) was triggered. Section 4(3)(c) of the Act is also triggered and the plaintiff is deemed to have willingly assumed all risks when he rode his bike on the trail that day.

The deputy trial judge cited Cormack v. Mara (Township) (1989), 68 O.R. (2d) 716 (C.A.) which defined “reckless disregard” as doing or omitting to do something which the occupier “should recognize as likely to cause damage or injury to [the person] present on his or her premises, not caring whether such damage or injury results”.

After the fire, police and fire personnel attended the scene the city dispatched a crew to erect an orange barrier with several lines of yellow caution tape blocking off bridge access. The bridge was blocked off in order to arrange an inspection to determine if the bridge was structurally safe.

The plaintiff’s expert report concluded that the city ought to have used either a reflective warning sign and/or a flashing beacon.

The city offered evidence that the recreational trails are closed between 11pm and 6am. There are signs posted which state this and there is a by-law which specifically prohibits presence in the park, including on the trails between those hours.

The deputy judge accepted the city’s evidence, although it only showed that the plaintiff was in violation of a city by-law. He held that the city did not act with “reckless disregard” for the plaintiff. The deputy judge further explained that,“it could not be deemed likely, from the city’s perspective, that a bicyclist riding a trail while it was closed, and more importantly, while it was almost completely dark, without a headlight, would fail to see the barricade until it was too late to stop safely. Nor do I find that the city did not care whether injury resulted from its erection of the barricade.”

The deputy judge also stated that a flashing light on the barricade would have increased the possibility of the plaintiff seeing the barrier, but that a light on his bike and riding at a slower speed in the dark would have done the same thing.

If the deputy judge had found for the plaintiff on liability, he would have reduced the damages by a factor of 70%.

Also see Kennedy v. London (City) (2009), 58 M.P.L.R. (4th) 244 (Ont S.C.J.) and Schneider v. St. Clair Region Conservation Authority (2009), 97 O.R. (3d) 81 (C.A.) on the issue of recreational trails.

- Alison McBurney

Admissibility of Expert Reports in Small Claims Court

2011-11-30T11:00:00.003-05:00

In Turner v. Kitchener (City) [2011] O.J. No. 4803, there was a mid-trial ruling on the admissibility of an expert report in Small Claims Court.

The facts of this case involve a plaintiff who was riding his bike along a recreational trail in Kitchener. It was his regular route and time of travel which put him on the trail at 5:15 am.

Earlier that morning vandals had set fire to a bridge along the trail and after investigating, the police and fire personnel had blocked off the bridge with a wooden barricade and yellow caution tape.

The plaintiff was biking at a relatively high speed for the time of morning, was wearing a helmet but did not have any light affixed to his bike. As the plaintiff approached the barricade, he was not able to see it, and when he did notice it is was too late to stop safely. The plaintiff applied his brakes so hard that he flipped over the bike and suffered injuries.

At trial, the plaintiff attempted to admit into evidence a report from a professional engineer. Defence counsel objected and intended to cross-examine the expert and challenge the admissibility of his report based on the evidence of qualifications.

The deputy trial judge held that the report was admissible. He cited section
27(1) of the Courts of Justice Act which provides the Small Claims Court (“SCC”) with the general authority to “accept and act on lower-quality evidence than would otherwise be permitted under the common law rules of evidence”.

He then examined the SCC Rule 18.02 subsections (1) to (7) and held that the position of defence counsel as he intended to cross-examine the expert is not contemplated by the Rules and that the report had already been admitted into evidence by way of Rule 18.02 (1) to (3). Admissibility of documents under Rule 18.02 is to be determined at the initial stage under Rule 18.02(1) when the document is tendered - “Once the document is admitted, the witness may be-cross-examined using the summons procedure under rule 18.02(4). But since that is cross-examination,the rule presupposes that the report or document is already admitted into evidence. The report or document serves as the examination-in-chief of that
witness.”

The deputy judge found no merit in the defendant’s objection to the expert’s qualifications. The expert was a professional engineer and his qualifications to provide the opinion evidence were of the highest quality generally seen in civil courts.

- Alison McBurney

OPCF 44R - Family Protection Endorsement

2011-11-23T11:34:00.003-05:00

The Court of Appeal recently affirmed a lower court decision on the OPCF44R.

In Van Bastelaar v. Bentley, [2011] O.J. No. 4666 (C.A.), the plaintiffs were concerned that the defendant's $1,000,000 policy would be apportioned between four injured parties and there would be a shortfall. As a result, they added their own insurer pursuant to the inadequately insured motorist provisions of their policy. Their policy had a Family Protection Endorsement with limits of $1,000,000. The key provision read as follows:

The insurer's maximum liability under this change form, regardless of the number of eligible claimants or insured persons injured or killed or the number of automobiles insured under the Policy, is the amount by which the limit of family protection coverage exceeds the total of all limits of motor vehicle liability insurance, or bonds, or cash deposits, or other financial guarantees as required by law in lieu of such insurance, of the inadequately insured motorist and of any person any person jointly liable with that motorist.

The motions judge held that "An underinsurer's obligation to pay does not arise until the total amount of insurance held by the tortfeasor at the moment of the accident is less than the family protection coverage liability limit." He concluded that since "the policies of the parties are unevenly matched, so therefore, the underinsurer had no exposure to liability".

The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.

- Tara Pollitt

McQueen v. Echelon General Insurance Co. [2011] O.J. No. 4563 (Ont CA)

2011-11-16T11:00:00.004-05:00

Appeal by the insurer from an award of accident benefits and damages for mental distress.

At trial, the plaintiff sought housekeeping, transportation, costs of medical assessments and damages for bad faith and mental distress.

The insurer made three major arguments on the issue of damages for mental distress:

1. That there was procedural unfairness based on the trial judge’s
consideration of conduct unrelated to rejected claims for statutory
accident benefits;

2. That merely denying benefits does mean that there was bad faith; and

3. That the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to make an award for mental
distress.

The trial judge quickly dismissed the initial two arguments by concluding that the plaintiff was seeking to recover damages for more than the SABS benefits and that this was not a case where the insured simply denied benefits.

In regards to the allegation that there was merely a denial of benefits the appeal judge agreed with the trial judge on the following points:

• The insurer had a duty to act in good faith in all its dealings with the
insured and had an additional duty not to inflict unnecessary mental
distress. Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. Ltd. 2006 2 SCR 3 (Fidler);

• That the insurer repeatedly refused to provide benefits noting that they
were not “reasonable and necessary”, but never provided and reasons why
they were not reasonable and necessary;

• That damages were warranted because benefits were denied contrary to
medical recommendations;

• That the insurer took an adversarial approach to the plaintiff in the
beginning;

• That the one object of the insurance contract was to secure the plaintiff’s
peace of mind and that it was within the reasonable contemplation of the
parties that breach of peace of mind promise would bring about mental
distress; and

• That the plaintiff’s mental distress was palpable and accepted her evidence
that the change in her emotional and psychological conduct was the result
of her relationship with the insurer.

In regards to the jurisdiction argument, the insurer argued that the plaintiff was not a party to the insurance contract since it was her husband’s policy, and therefore, she was not entitled to claim for damages for mental distress.

It was further argued that Fider was distinguishable because Fidler dealt with LTD benefits not SABS benefits and that consequently, peace of mind cannot have been a contemplated term.

The appeal judge held that the reasoning in Fidler applies to an insured person under an automobile policy, whether the person is the named party or not.

“Mental distress to anyone insured under the policy upon breach would
have been within the reasonable contemplation of the insurer and the
insured and, thus, damages are recoverable pursuant to the basic
principle of compensatory damages.”

….

“People purchase motor vehicle policies to protect themselves from
financial and emotional stress and insecurity. An object of such
contracts is to secure a psychological benefit that brought the prospect
of mental distress upon breach within the reasonable contemplation of
the parties at the time the contract was made.”

In the end, the appeal judge affirmed all aspects of the trial judge’s decision only modifying the total awarded under the transportation head of damages as the trial judge provided inadequate reasons for the amount.

- Alison McBurney

Sheikh v. Pinheiro 2011 ONSC 6143

2011-11-09T11:00:00.003-05:00

We thank M. Edward Key of O’Donnell, Robertson & Sanfilippo for this contribution to our blog.

The plaintiff was going westbound in her vehicle and the defendant taxi driver was travelling northbound in his taxi. They collided at an intersection. The defendant taxi then went on to collide with a southbound vehicle. That southbound vehicle did not collide with the plaintiff’s vehicle.

None of the drivers appeared to be hurt. They all went to the same Collision Reporting Center and filled out very detailed collision reports. There was no question who was driving what vehicle.

On the second anniversary of the collision, the plaintiff brought an action against the driver of the southbound vehicle, believing that he was the taxi driver. Essentially, the plaintiff got the other two drivers confused.
Two years after that (i.e. four years after the collision), the plaintiff commenced a separate action against the real taxi driver after realizing the mistake.

The taxi driver brought a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the action was limitation barred.

The plaintiff argued that there was a genuine issue regarding when the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the true identity of the driver that hit her vehicle. The motion judge made short work of that argument. In particular, for strategic reasons, the plaintiff did not swear an affidavit regarding the state of her personal knowledge of the issues, and the motion materials only included affidavits from their lawyers. The judge determined that the information was readily available in the form of the Self Collision Reports.

Alternatively, the plaintiff argued that there was a genuine issue for trial on the basis that she could not "discover" that her injuries were likely to satisfy the Insurance Act threshold until 2 years before she started the second action.
The motions judge rejected the plaintiff's argument. The trial judge considered that the medical evidence was clear that it was "reasonably discoverable" that the plaintiff's injuries met the threshold more than two years before the second action was commenced.

The motion judge looked not only at medical reports, but also relied on the fact that the first Statement of Claim (issued exactly 2 years after the accident) alleged that she sustained "serious and permanent injuries." The motion judge stated at paragraph 47 of his reasons that, "While this action was mistakenly directed against the wrong defendant, this assertion by the plaintiff in the Statement of Claim is akin to an admission that, by at least that time, if not earlier, the plaintiff viewed her injuries from the accident as serious and permanent, and that they had thereby discovered their potential cause of action."

Statutory Duty of Care

2011-11-02T11:00:00.002-04:00

Morsi v. Femer Paving Ltd. [2011] O.J. No. 3960

This is an appeal from a trial decision that held York Region and Femer Paving Ltd each 25 % liable for a single car motor vehicle accident. The deceased was driving in excess of the speed limit, ignoring speed and construction signs and lost control of his vehicle when the road surface changed from fresh pavement to gravel.

The trial judge held that the plaintiff was 50% to blame for the accident, leaving the defendants with the other 50%.

York Region and Femer Paving appealed the decision.

York Region’s main submission was that after the trial Judge correctly stated the main issue and the test for resolving the issue …

“Whether at the material time Major Mackenzie drive was in a state of repair that was reasonable in the circumstances such that users of the road, exercising ordinary care, could travel upon it safely.”

… that he did not apply the test to the facts of the case.

“The evidence of Detective Stock and the Varicom tests as well as the evidence of Constable Herbert and the various engineering experts establishes that if Mark Morsi had operated his vehicle at the posted speed or even a speed modestly above it, he would have been able to successfully negotiate the transition area.”

The Ontario Court of Appeal found the driver to be reckless having accelerated to 117 km/h through a long curve and straightaway and ignoring two 60km/h speed signs, a reverse curve sign, a 40 km/h advisory sign and two construction signs. This was not a driver exercising ordinary care.

The appeal was allowed and the action by the driver’s family was dismissed.

- Alison McBurney

New Minor Injury Guideline

2011-10-26T11:00:00.002-04:00

The new Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) came into effect September 1, 2010. Among the key amendments, there has been a reduction of medical and rehabilitation benefits from $100,000.00 to $50,000.00. In some cases, this will be further reduced to $3,500.00 under the new Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The MIG applies to accidents that occurred on or after September 1, 2010, and replaces the Pre Authorized Framework for Grade I and II whiplash associated disorders. Section 268.3 of the Insurance Act requires that the MIG be considered in any determination involving the interpretation of the SABS.

An insured person’s impairment comes within this Guideline if the impairment is predominantly a minor injury. “Minor injury” is defined in the new SABS as a “sprain, strain, whiplash associated disorder, contusion, abrasion, laceration or subluxation and any clinically associate sequelae”. Each of these conditions are further defined to specify the severity of each to move it out of the “minor injury” category. For example, “whiplash associated disorder” is defined as “a whiplash injury that does not exhibit objective, demonstrative, definable and clinically relevant neurological signs, and does not exhibit a fracture in or dislocation of the spine”.

The objectives of the MIG are to speed access to rehabilitation for persons who sustain minor injuries in auto accidents, improve utilization of health care resources, provide certainty around cost and payment for insurers and regulated health professionals, and be more inclusive in providing immediate access to treatment without insurer approval for those persons with minor injuries.

Many accident victims may now find their benefits reduced to $3,500.00 and if they do not have a tort claim, they may have little alternative for additional medical coverage. The Financial Services Commission of Ontario expects the MIG to capture 30%-40% of accident claims.

Section 18(2) provides for an exclusion from MIG if the insured person’s health practitioner determines and provides compelling evidence that the insured person has a pre-existing medical condition that will prevent the insured person from achieving maximal recovery from the minor injury if subject to the $3,500.00 limit. This exception raises the question of what the courts will consider to be “compelling evidence”.

- Kristen Dearlove, Student-at-Law

Municipality attempts to exert rights to shoreline road after discovering a 150 year old By-law

2011-10-19T11:00:00.003-04:00

Meaford (Municipality) v. Grist [2011] O.J. No. 4188

This is an interesting case regarding an 1854 By-law that had been found in 2004, which purported to create a municipal/public road along the shore of Georgian Bay.

Some of the named defendants brought two summary judgment motions claiming that there are no genuine issues requiring a trial. The action is disputed by the defendants because the road would take away approximately 66 feet of their shorelines lands.

The road had not been registered on title until 2007 after the Municipality discovered the By-law.

The Municipality’s argument, among other things included the doctrine of dedication and acceptance.

Justice Daley set out the test for the common law doctrine of dedication and acceptance/ long user:

Dedication depends on the intention of the donor and also acceptance of
the road by public authority.

There are three conditions:

1. An owner of the land on which the road is situated had formed the
intention to dedicate the land to the public road or highway;

2. The intention was carried out by the road being thrown open to the
public; and

3. The road was accepted by the public.

Dedication can occur by usurpation and long enjoyment.

Where members of the public continually use the road over a long period
of time, dedication may be inferred.

Justice Daley stated that the plaintiff bears the onus “upon a preponderance of probability to demonstrate that the conditions necessary for the establishment of dedication and acceptance were all present”. He then refers to the Reed v. Town of Lincoln [1973] decision where the “cogency of the evidence required to satisfy the burden … may vary … according to the nature of the issue with respect to which the burden must be met.”

Using this ruling, he bolsters the onus requiring the municipality to “satisfy the onus by a clear and substantial preponderance of evidence that the property owners have lost the title to a portion of their property which now constitutes a public road”.

Meaford argued that the public highway existed prior to the by-law. It was held that there was no genuine issue for trial; the plaintiff had not offered any physical/documentary evidence. Even if there had been a road, the time from the initial Crown grant in 1840 to the date of the by-law in 1854, is not enough time to find a “long user”.

It was further held that there was no dedication and acceptance in modern day, for many reasons, including:

1. The municipality graded the road approximately twice a year –
otherwise had no involvement in the upkeep.

2. The municipality entered into a maintenance agreement with the
cottage owners association.

3. In 1986, part of the road had washed away and the municipality had
not restored the road. In fact, the owner of the property had a
different portion of his property, severed, re-zoned and built a
private driveway (no dispute that this “inland” driveway was a
private road).

4. The “inland” driveway was maintained pursuant to the maintenance
agreement.

5. The defendants were bona fide purchasers for value and the cottages
built on the lots comply with zoning by-laws in regards to set back
from the water’s edge and not from the disputed road.

6. There was no evidence of municipal funds or labour to build, maintain
or restore the road.

7. The municipality, in this action, was only trying to lay claim to a
very small potion of the road that the By-law purported to create.

Justice Daley held that there was no evidence of actual or implied dedication or acceptance and was held not to give rise to any issues requiring a trial.

He went further to state that the municipality had slept on their rights for over 150years and applied the doctrine of laches and acquiescence and that “quite apart from all of the other reasons expressed (in the 192 paragraphs), it would be unjust to grant Meaford’s claim”.

This post was prepared by our Associate Alison McBurney.

The Importance of Causation

2011-10-12T11:00:00.002-04:00

In Lancaster (Litigation Guardian of) v. Santos, [2011] O.J. No. 3706, the County of Dufferin was added as a third party in an action arising out of a MVA on November 21, 2001 involving a fully-loaded pickup truck being driven by Mr. Santos and the plaintiff’s vehicle.

The transport had tipped over when coming around a curve and slid into oncoming traffic. It was alleged that but for the County’s failure to properly sign the portion of the road in issue, Mr. Santos would have been aware of the hazardous road condition and would have reduced his speed such that he could have managed the curve.

Lemon J., found the cause of the accident, on a balance of probabilities, to be the shifting of the truck’s load as a result of it not being properly secured. Mr. Santos had testified that the signs which existed provided some warning and he reacted to it by slowing down. As a result of this testimony, the road conditions and signage were not found to be the cause.

Lemon J., went on to determine whether the County could have been liable had there been causation. The plaintiff argued that when the County breached the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) by not properly signing the road, it breached its duty of care.

Lemon J., stated: “while I agree that this sign did not meet the standard set by the MUTCD, and that other drivers in other circumstances might have been mislead, that was not the case for Mr. Santos…The sign as posted was doing its job”.

This case is significant in that that court confirms an obvious yet often overlooked principle – If there is a breach of the duty of care, it must have contributed to or caused the MVA. Municipalities should keep in mind that although they perhaps made a mistake at some point in time, it must be considered whether this mistake caused or contributed to the MVA.

Thanks to our articling student, Kristen Dearlove, for this post.

Court of Appeal Comments on s. 132 of the Insurance Act

2011-10-05T12:00:00.002-04:00

The Court of Appeal recently commented on s. 132 of the Insurance Act. Section 132 provides that a person who obtains a judgment against an insured person which has not been satisfied may recover that amount from the insured’s insurer.

In Walker v. Sovereign General Insurance Co., [2011] O.J. No. 4106 (C.A.), the Walkers obtained a judgment against Sun Shelters Industries Inc. for damages sustained in a parking lot slip and fall. Sun Shelters went bankrupt and could not pay the judgment, so the Walkers brought an action under s. 132 against Sun Shelters’ insurance company, Sovereign. Sovereign’s position was that it did not receive proper notice as required under the CGL policy and as a result was not required to defend the action or indemnify Sun Shelters or the Walkers.

The Court of Appeal held that notice of a claim can be given either by the insured or by a person on behalf of the insured. In this case, notice was given to Sovereign by a co-defendant. The Court noted that if notice is given by someone other than the insured, the person should have sufficient proximity to give adequate details of the claim:

36 Given its purpose and importance, if the notice is to be given for an insured instead of by the insured itself, the person giving it should have sufficient proximity to the claim to have knowledge of the information required by s. 3(a). Emshih was just such a person. It owned the property where the accident occurred; it was a defendant in the original action; and it cross-claimed against Sovereign's insured. In giving notice to Sovereign, Emshih was giving notice for Sun Shelters as contemplated by s. 3(a) of the policy.

Sovereign had actual notice of the claim and made a conscious decision not to defend. If the insurer had no knowledge of the claim, no opportunity to investigate or negotiate a settlement, it may be that the decision would be different.

- Tara

Information contained in written statement insured gave to insurer – is the insured required to provide this information at examination for discovery?

2011-09-28T11:00:00.000-04:00

In Sangaralingam v. Sinnathurai, [2011] ONSC 1618, when examining the defendant for discovery, counsel for the plaintiff requested that the defendant provide information contained in the written statement he gave to his insurer following the motor vehicle accident. Defendant’s counsel refused to provide the statement or the contained information on the grounds that it was protected by litigation privilege.

A motion was made to a master who ruled that the defendant was not required to provide the information in the statement on the basis that the defendant had already been examined for discovery at length and the plaintiff also received a copy of the statement the defendant provided to the police following the accident. Therefore, such questioning would be solely with respect to the credibility of the defendant.

The master’s decision was appealed. The motions judge required the defendant to answer the question. The motions judge relied on the principle that questions on discovery seeking the facts of a party’s case do not offend privilege even though the source of the facts is a document over which privilege is being asserted.

There was a further appeal to the Divisional Court. Justice Herman referred to the test for when litigation privilege should be set aside as provided by Justice Ducharme in Kennedy v. McKenzie, [2005] O.J. No. 2060: where “the materials being sought are relevant to the proof of an issue important to the outcome of the case and [that] there is no reasonable alternative form of evidence that can serve the same purpose”.

Upon application of this test to the case at hand, Justice Herman concluded that in the course of the examination for discovery, counsel for the plaintiff had the opportunity to ask questions of the defendant that were relevant to the material issues. The defendant was co-operative and was not withholding information. Therefore, there was an alternative means available to obtain the relevant information and as a result litigation privilege should not be set aside.

Also, with respect to whether the request was directed solely to the credibility of the defendant, Justice Herman stated that it was his opinion that the sole purpose of the question being asked was to find out what the defendant told his insurer and therefore was asked for the sole purpose of credibility.

The Canadian Institute of Actuaries’ Recommendations to the Rules Committee on the Prescribed Discount Rate and Prejudgment Interest

2011-09-22T12:00:00.003-04:00

On June 1, 2011 the Canadian Institute of Actuaries (CIA) submitted their observations and recommendations to the Civil Rules Committee with respect to the Committee’s review of rules 52.09 and 53.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (“the Rules”). The CIA reviewed these rules from the perspective of today’s economy − a low interest rate environment.

Rule 52.09(1) lays out how the discount rate is to be calculated for awards for future pecuniary damages in order to account for investment and price inflation rates. The CIA pointed out that the prescribed interest rate in Ontario for the first 15 years is lower than any other province or territory where discount rates are prescribed for this purpose. As a result, since interest rates are at historically low levels, a plaintiff will receive a higher settlement in Ontario than a plaintiff in another province or territory.

Rule 52.09(1) provides for a negative adjustment of 1%. This negative adjustment is a result of a belief in 2000 that rates of return for real return bonds were higher than the true underlying expected real rate of return. The CIA believes that this may not be a valid justification in today’s economic environment but noted that this negative adjustment could serve a valid public policy objective by providing a margin for adverse investment contingencies.

The CIA noted that there is a potential for misinterpretation of rule 53.09(1) and recommended that the wording be altered slightly to clarify that there is not only one discount rate to be applied to one particular loss under 53.09(1) and to make it clear that the rate prescribed by 53.09(1)(a) is to be used in discounting all losses.

Lastly with respect to rule 53.09(1), the CIA suggested that the Committee consider prescribing a nominal discount rate that could be used in situations when a real discount rate would be inappropriate.

Rule 53.10 sets the prejudgment interest rate for non-pecuniary damages at 5% per year. The CIA acknowledges that this rate is reasonable from a public policy perspective as it motivates settlement and compensates successful plaintiffs for delays in resolution. However, the CIA suggests that a floating rate based on yields on GICs with an adjustment may be a consideration. They recognize however that this would largely increase the complexity.

Summary Judgment Rule

2011-09-12T11:24:00.000-04:00

(Canada) Attorney General v. Ranger, 2011 ON SC 3196

While we wait for the Ontario Court of Appeal to clarify the scope of the new summary judgment rule, the Honourable Justice Power has recently shown a preference for the interpretation of the new Rule 20 that expands the power of the court in making findings of fact.

Various Superior Court of Justice judges have interpreted the changes to Rule 2o differently, some suggesting that it does not give a motions judge the power to make findings of fact for the purpose of deciding an action on the basis of evidence while others (now including Power, J.) suggest that it does allow a motions judge to make findings of fact.

The ultimate resolution of these diverging points of view by the Ontario Court of Appeal will have a significant impact on insurance defence litigation. Often defendants are faced with having to decide whether to go through an expensive trial or just make a "smaller payment" to settle a claim, even where a defendant is fairly sure that there should not be a finding of liability. Given the extraordinary cost of trials, defendants often unfortunately decide to settle even where they should not if they can settle for a small sum and avoid the cost and risk of trial.

The recent decision of Power, J. in (Canada) Attorney General v. Ranger, 2011 ON SC 3196, granted summary judgment to homeowners who were being sued under the Occupier's Liability Act for injuries sustained by a postal worker who had slipped and fallen on ice and snow while delivering mail to their home. The evidence of the homeowners at their examination for discovery was that they had a routine whereby they shoveled snow and salted icy areas when needed. Power, J. found that no further evidence could be put before a trial judge and therefore it was not necessary to proceed to trial. Power, J. then dismissed the action in its entirety.

Defence lawyers and insurers may yet find the new summary judgment rule to be a helpful tool in addressing claims without merit.

Gross Negligence Standard for Municipal Sidewalks

2011-08-23T09:02:00.001-04:00

In Richer v. Elliot Lake [2001] ONSC the plaintiff slipped and fell on ice on a sidewalk. In accordance with s. 44(9) of the Municipal Act, the standard of care is lowered from ordinary negligence to gross negligence.

Koke J. referred to the 1927 Supreme Court of Canada decision, Holland v. City of Toronto, that defined gross negligence as “very great negligence”. Thum v. Elliot Lake [1999] O.J. No. 3158 held that the degree of negligence is context specific and listed elements to consider: 1) notice of the existence of a dangerous condition which authorities actually had or which should be imputed to them; 2) their opportunity to remedy it; 3) the state of weather immediately before the accident; and 4) the relative situation of the place where the accident occurred.

In the current case, the court found as a fact that there had been a thaw-freeze cycle, there was a sheet of ice which caused the plaintiff to fall, there was no evidence of any sand at the scene, city crews had been sent out to clear and sand the streets and sidewalks following the snow fall, and there were not any other reported complaints that evening.

Koke J. appears to have given the most weight to the plaintiff’s own testimony that he walked to work that morning and walked about ¾ of a kilometer after leaving work before falling. He stated that he didn’t have any problems walking on the sidewalks prior to the fall.

The court held that overall the plaintiff was not able to show that on the evening in question the condition on the city’s sidewalks was generally slippery or icy. There was nothing to suggest this was not an isolated incident. Koke J. went on to say that even if the court were to find the city negligent for not spreading sand on the sidewalk at that location, this would constitute negligence, not gross negligence.

Supreme Court comments on motions to strike

2011-08-17T11:54:00.002-04:00

The Supreme Court recently commented on motions to strike on the basis there is no reasonable cause of action. In R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42, Imperial Tobacco is a defendant in two cases in British Columbia: one where the government seeks to recover the cost of medical treatment provided to smokers, and the second a class action pertaining to class members who purchased “light” or “mild” cigarettes. Imperial Tobacco issued third party claims against the federal government, alleging negligent misrepresentation, negligent design and failure to warn. In addition, Imperial alleges Canada was a “manufacturer” or “supplier” of cigarettes.

The Supreme Court held that all of the third party claims failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and struck them. The Court confirmed that the test remains whether the claim has no reasonable chance of success. The purpose of the test is described as follows:

[19] The power to strike out claims that have no reasonable prospect of success is a valuable housekeeping measure essential to effective and fair litigation. It unclutters the proceedings, weeding out the hopeless claims and ensuring that those that have some chance of success go on to trial.
[20] This promotes two goods — efficiency in the conduct of the litigation and correct results. Striking out claims that have no reasonable prospect of success promotes litigation efficiency, reducing time and cost. The litigants can focus on serious claims, without devoting days and sometimes weeks of evidence and argument to claims that are in any event hopeless. The same applies to judges and juries, whose attention is focused where it should be — on claims that have a reasonable chance of success. The efficiency gained by weeding out unmeritorious claims in turn contributes to better justice. The more the evidence and arguments are trained on the real issues, the more likely it is that the trial process will successfully come to grips with the parties’ respective positions on those issues and the merits of the case.
[21] Valuable as it is, the motion to strike is a tool that must be used with care. The law is not static and unchanging. Actions that yesterday were deemed hopeless may tomorrow succeed. Before Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.) introduced a general duty of care to one’s neighbour premised on foreseeability, few would have predicted that, absent a contractual relationship, a bottling company could be held liable for physical injury and emotional trauma resulting from a snail in a bottle of ginger beer. Before Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1963] 2 All E.R. 575 (H.L.), a tort action for negligent misstatement would have been regarded as incapable of success. The history of our law reveals that often new developments in the law first surface on motions to strike or similar preliminary motions, like the one at issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson. Therefore, on a motion to strike, it is not determinative that the law has not yet recognized the particular claim. The court must rather ask whether, assuming the facts pleaded are true, there is a reasonable prospect that the claim will succeed. The approach must be generous and err on the side of permitting a novel but arguable claim to proceed to trial.

Imperial argued that the motion to strike should be dismissed on the basis that future evidence might reveal more evidence against the government. The Court rejected this argument; the focus is on the pleadings, not the evidence and a judge cannot consider what future evidence might or might not show.

In addition to a useful summary of the test on a motion to strike, the Court goes through the Anns duty of care analysis. The decision is a good synopsis of these important principles.

Discoverability - Identity of Vehicle Owner

2011-08-10T12:39:00.002-04:00

After determining vehicle ownership, is counsel required to continue looking for contrary information?

Velasco v. North York Chevrolet Oldsmobile Ltd., [2011] ONCA 522 (C.A.), involves a car accident that occurred in 2005. The appellant’s vehicle was struck by two other vehicles. The ownership of the one vehicle (the “Denyer vehicle”) is the subject of this appeal.

The appellant issued a statement of claim in 2006. Counsel relied on a statement in the police report to determine that Denyer was the owner of the Denyer vehicle. This belief was confirmed later that year by way of the pleadings delivered by Denyer’s insurer stating that Denyer was the owner of the vehicle.

Early in 2007, counsel for the appellant received a 732 page Crown Brief that contained a license plate search which showed that Denyer was not in fact the owner of the vehicle. This search did not come to the attention of counsel until two years later when preparing for discoveries. At that time, a statement of claim was issued against the respondents on the basis of their ownership.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the claim against them on the basis that the limitation period had expired. The motion judge held that counsel for the appellant should not have closed their minds to the ownership issue and should have reviewed the Crown Brief promptly to settle that issue.

The Court of Appeal disagreed with the motion judge and held that counsel had acted with reasonable diligence in continuing to rely on the initial information they had received “until contrary information actually came to their attention”. The court did not find a duty on counsel to positively search for contradictory information after they were satisfied as to the ownership.

Thanks to our articling student, Kristen Dearlove, for this post.

Leave to call nine witnesses denied

2011-08-03T10:18:00.003-04:00

The rules of evidence allow for three expert witnesses to be called at trial. The plaintiff in Leonard v. Kline ,[2011] ONSC 2730 (S.C.J.) sought leave to call nine expert witnesses at her upcoming jury trial. The list of proposed experts included a psychiatrist, psychologist, vocational expert, vocational rehabilitation consultant, accountant/actuary and others.

The issue at the plaintiff’s upcoming trial was her earning capacity. The plaintiff sought to have each expert witness give an opinion on whether she would be able to engage in gainful employment. The plaintiff’s argument was two-fold: 1) each expert approaches the issue from a different area of expertise; and 2) the jury should know what the “weight of expert” evidence is on the issue.

The defendant argued that this would be duplicitous [sic - duplicative]. The defendant only intended to call two expert witnesses.

Ellies J. did not agree with the plaintiff’s “weight of expert evidence” argument expressing his concern with trials becoming battles of the experts. He went on to consider the eight factors listed in Burgess (Litigation Guardian of) v. Wu , [2005] O.J. No. 929. His decision focused on factor seven – the degree to which there is duplication in the proposed opinions of different experts.

Upon determining that some of the proposed expert witnesses were duplicitous [sic - duplicative]. , Ellies J. proceeded to divide them into groups based on shared opinions, whether they prepared joint reports, and whether they used similar tests upon the plaintiff in which their opinion was based. The plaintiff was then given the option to choose one expert witness from each group.

This decision seems to be a good example of the court fulfilling its "gatekeeper" role with respect to experts.

Deductibility of CPP Disability Benefits

2011-07-27T10:00:00.001-04:00

The plaintiff in Demers v. B.R. Davidson Mining & Development Ltd. [2011] ONSC 2046 received CPP benefits following a car accident in 1999. A dispute arose as to the deductibility of these benefits.

Prior to November 1, 1996 it was clear that CPP benefits were not deductible. The law in this respect became less clear with the enactment of Bill 59. This Bill dealt with car accidents occurring after November 1, 1996 and before October 1, 2003. As a result of its enactment, s.267.8(1) of the Act provided for the deduction of benefits for “loss of earning capacity”. What wasn’t clear was whether this included CPP benefits.

To complicate matters further, there were two conflicting court decisions. The court in Meloche v. McKenzie ,[2005] O.J. No. 3761 (S.C.J.) looked to the 2003 amendments which specify that CPP benefits are deductible and concluded that this amendment must be a clarification of the original legislation. The court in Sonnenberger v. Creamer, [2009] O.J. No. 754 (S.C.J.) made the opposite finding as it took the position that the amendment did not provide for retrospective application.

There is also a Court of Appeal decision, Kosanovic v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [2004] O.R. (3d) 161 (C.A.) which held that CPP benefits were not deductible for this time period. This case was not considered by the court in Meloche and arguments were made by the defendants in Demers that this case should not be considered.

Shaw J. found Kosanovic relevant and binding but also focused on two principals of statutory interpretation to settle the issue: 1) the ordinary meaning of a legislative provision should prevail absent a good reason to reject it; and 2) there must be something in the wording of the provision or in the circumstances in which it is enacted to indicate that the provision is meant to be retroactive. He concluded that the legislation in effect in 1999, when the accident occurred, does not expressly provide for the deduction of CPP benefits and the amended legislation does not indicate retroactivity.

As a result of this case there appears to be two distinct periods of time: 1) accidents which occurred between October 23, 1989 and September 30, 2003 (CPP benefits not deductible); and 2) accidents which occurred after October 1, 2003 (CPP benefits deductible).

Summary judgment in jury cases

2011-07-21T12:03:00.001-04:00

Is summary judgment available in jury cases?

Cooke v. Toivonen (2011), 105 O.R. (3d) 232 (S.C.J.)

This case involved a multi-vehicle automobile collision. The Cooke vehicle was hit from behind by Price, and in turn Cooke hit Toivonen. Toivonen hit the vehicle in front of him.

The plaintiffs consented to an order releasing Toivonen from the action; however, the remaining defendants objected, arguing that to do so would amount to bifurcating the trial. Rule 6.01 permits bifurcation only if all parties consent. In Kovacs v. Kovacs, the Court of Appeal held that jury cases are an exception to the court’s inherent power to split a trial.

The Court held that it has the authority to order summary judgment in jury cases. Summary judgment is not at odds with a litigant’s right to a jury trial. There was no air of reality to a claim that the Toivonen vehicle could be liable and the action and crossclaims against Toivonen were dismissed.

Insurance Fraud

2011-07-14T09:56:00.003-04:00

The front page of the Toronto Star today headlines "Shady clinics bilk $1.3 billion in bogus car insurance claims scam".

The related article states:

Ontario’s car insurance industry is under attack by bogus medical clinics that use fake accident treatment charges to milk the system...

Travel around Toronto and you will see more and more of these rehabilitation clinics popping up. Anybody can open one and they are not regulated. One New York man with an auto insurance fraud conviction is listed as administrator of a Mississauga clinic.

...Here’s how it typically works.

Tow truck drivers or paralegals direct accident victims — drivers and passengers — to rehab clinics. They might get a finder’s fee of $1,000 cash or, in the case of paralegals, a percentage of the payout. It is not uncommon for a clinic to bill an insurer $40,000 over the life of a claim.

The accident victims the Star found often spoke little or no English. At the clinic they were handed forms to sign that gave the clinic the right to submit claims to their insurance firm and receive payments.

Here is a link to the Toronto Star's website.

Deductibility of Statutory Accident Benefits

2011-07-13T13:31:00.000-04:00

Sutherland v. Singh, [2011] O.J. No. 2901 (C.A.)

The plaintiff was eligible for income replacement benefits (IRBs) and caregiver benefits (CGBs). He elected to receive CGBs. Under s. 267.8(1) of the Insurance Act, damages are reduced by payments for statutory accident benefits that the plaintiff received or that were “available”. The issue on appeal was whether IRBs were “available” to the plaintiff (thus allowing the tort defendant to deduct them) even though he elected to receive CGBs. The Court of Appeal held that the answer is “no”.

Justice Gillese held that once the plaintiff elected to receive CGBs, IRBs were no longer available to him. The purpose of s. 267.8 is to prevent double recovery. The effect of allowing the defendants to deduct CGBs that the plaintiff received as well as IRBs that he never received would be to create a windfall for the defendant.

Disclosure of Surveillance - 2

2011-06-29T09:15:00.004-04:00

Aherne v. Chang, 2011 ONSC 3846

This is an appeal from Master Short’s recent decision on the issue of ‘when is privilege waived?’.

The defendants argued that if they provided surveillance material to an IME doctor, the privilege was not waived until the doctor released the report. The plaintiff argued that the privilege was waived as soon as the surveillance was given to the IME doctor. The defendant seems to want to avoid having the plaintiff’s lawyer review the surveillance before the plaintiff goes to the IME to make sure that the plaintiff doesn’t embellish during the IME.

It seems that the defendant in this case could have avoided this entire problem if they simply held onto the surveillance materials and let the IME doctor assess the plaintiff and prepare the report. Then, after the report is released, the defendant can provide the IME doctor with the surveillance, and ask the IME doctor if the surveillance changes his/her opinion.

Thanks to M. Edward Key for bringing this appeal to our attention and for the comments.

Unidentified Motorist - Corroborating Evidence

2011-06-22T12:00:00.001-04:00

In our post of July 27, 2010, we blogged about the case of Pepe v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., [2010] O.J. No. 2138 (S.C.J.) and whether a passenger in an insured’s motor vehicle was an “independent witness” who can corroborate the insured’s evidence concerning the involvement of an unidentified motorist for the purposes of the OPCF 44R Family Protection Endorsement. The motions judge held that the passenger could corroborate the insured’s claim for the purpose of OPCF 44R coverage, despite the fact that she was the insured's girlfriend and was also suing State Farm for damages caused by an unidentified driver.

The Court of Appeal has upheld the motions judge's decision.

Doherty J.A. reviewed the history of requiring corroboration and cited Chief Justice Dickson, in Vetrovec v. The Queen, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811 at 826, for identifying the rationale for a corroboration requirement:

"The reason for requiring corroboration is that we believe the witness has good reason to lie. We therefore want some other piece of evidence which tends to convince us that he is telling the truth."

Doherty J.A. held that State Farm’s assertion that it is the witness who must be independent, in the sense of neutral to the outcome, was wrong. The independence requirement in the context of corroboration has always referred to the independence of the evidence and not to the neutrality of the witness. The witness’s neutrality or lack thereof is relevant to the ultimate credibility of the witness’s evidence, which is for the trial judge to assess.

Disclosure of Surveillance

2011-06-15T12:48:00.003-04:00

If surveillance is provided to an independent medical assessor, does it have to be produced to the plaintiff, even if the assessor does not rely on it in forming his or her opinion?

In Aherne v. Chang, [2011] O.J. No. 1880 (S.C.J.), the plaintiff sued for injuries alleged to have been caused as a result of medical treatment provided by the defendant. On the defendant's examination for discovery, his counsel confirmed that there had been no surveillance undertaken but refused to answer questions pertaining to disclosure of any future surveillance that might be undertaken after the discoveries. Counsel for the defendant took the position that privilege over documents released to a medical examiner, is waived only if the document is relied upon by the medical examiner, and not at the time that the document is released to the medical examiner. The plaintiff sought to obtain copies of any surveillance that was released by the defendant to a physician or healthcare practitioner retained for purposes of a defence medical assessment.

Master Short held that from the moment of his retainer to conduct a Rule 33 examination, a defence medical examiner owes his or her primary duty to the court. It is inappropriate and unseemly for the court to prevent any party before it from having contemporary access to the information provided to that expert.

Master Short summarized the following principles emerging from the rules and previous jurisprudence:

(a) if information is sent to an expert, then the same information should be sent to the opposing party to allow that party to test the expert’s opinion;
(b) an opposing party is entitled to the facts on which the expert’s opinion is based;
(c) so long as an expert read a document sent to him or her, then that document was considered, such that it is a “finding” that must be produced;
(d) the privilege claimed over a document sent to an expert is waived at the time that it was decided to rely on that expert’s opinion or in circumstances where privilege is waived over the report, even if the waiver was inadvertent;
(e) by sending a defence medical assessor portions of surveillance, privilege over the full surveillance video or all photographs is waived.

Master Short held that privilege is lost at the point the material is sent to an expert retained for the purpose of a Rule 33 examination. It was therefore held that the defendant is obliged to provide a copy of any surveillance of the plaintiff concurrently with its release to any defence medical examiner.

2011-06-08T12:00:00.002-04:00

Thanks to Barb Legate for this comment on our post on McNeill v. Filthaut, regarding the current debate over the testimony of accident benefits assessors:

"A point that seems to be missed in some of these analyses is that notwithstanding the provisions of Rules 4 and 53, those rules are merely a codification of the law that stated with Amertek. Rules 4 and 53 are part of the Mohan criteria, and fall under the "any exclusionary rule" branch. So, although there are exclusionary rules for experts a party retains, that does not end the analysis. If a witness is to give opinion evidence, the witness has to be qualified as an expert. Part of the qualification exercise is to enquire into bias. Bias also enters into the relevance assessment. See CA decision in Abbey.

IMHO, those cases that strain to differentiate treating opinions from AB opinions from DAC opinions and retained expert opinions have missed the basic law: you want to call a witness to give an opinion, then follow Mohan. No fancy differentiations needed."

Special Circumstances Doctrine

2011-06-06T12:32:00.001-04:00

This is a case which comments on the Special Circumstances doctrine which we have been reviewing recently in our last two blog entries. This case was brought to our attention by Dana Paladino, legal counsel at the City of Windsor. Thanks Dana!

Wood Waste Solutions Canada Inc. v. Associated Paving Company, 2010 ONSC 6280 (CanLII). The court indicates that the special circumstances doctrine is potentially available where an old limitation period applies.

It is surprising that this wouldn’t have been mentioned in Chadowski.

2011-06-04T12:19:00.002-04:00

This is further to our May 25th blog of last week on the Special Circumstances Doctrine.

Thanks to Edward Key of O'Donnell, Roberston & Sanfilippo, Toronto, for this comment:

My understanding is that “special circumstances” is still alive for causes of action that pre-date January 1, 2004.

For example, in Parent v. Janandee Management Inc. (2009) 82 C.P.C. (6th) 321 (Ont. Master), Master Short wrote:

[29] For cases dealing with events occurring after January 1, 2004, the Ontario

Court of Appeal has held in Joseph v. Paramount Canada's Wonderland (2008),

90 O.R. (3d) 401 (Ont. C.A.) (at paragraphs 27 and 28) that the equitable concept

of special circumstances permitting an extension of time for suit, no longer

applies in Ontario. As this case is based upon an occurrence that took place prior

to January 1, 2004, the Court of Appeal's decision in Meady v. Greyhound

Canada Transportation Corp., 2008 ONCA 468 (Ont. C.A.) does hold that the

doctrine of special circumstances may be available to the plaintiffs in this in

seeking the addition of a party to litigation after the expiry of the limitation

period.

New Look for the Blog

2011-05-27T08:49:00.004-04:00

This is the second anniversary of the Ontario Insurance Law Blog and so we have decided to make some minor changes that will hopefully make it more user friendly. We just wanted to let you know that there may be some changes to the look of the blog but the content and purpose will continue the same.

Our goal, as always, is to create a forum for discussing insurance law. The goal is not to provide only case summaries but also to encourage discussion and commentary. We really appreciate receiving your feedback. If you have a comment to make, please email us and (with your permission) we will post your comment to the blog for others to read.

Best regards!

John Norton and Tara Pollitt

Revival of the Special Circumstances Doctrine?

2011-05-25T09:33:00.001-04:00

Has the special circumstances doctrine been revived for limitation periods? We thought the Courts have been clear that under the new statute of limitations there is no exception for special circumstances. However, Wood J. recently held that special circumstances applied and granted an extension of time. In the case the plaintiff was trying to add defendants who were already third and fourth parties. Perhaps the exception will apply then only to when third and fourth parties are being added as defendants?

The case of Chodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc., [2010] O.J. No. 3773, looks at the issue of joining parties after limitation periods have expired. In Chodowski, the motion is the result of plaintiff’s counsel, who had brought a timely motion seeking leave to join the third and fourth parties as defendants. It was not until the newly retained plaintiff’s counsel set the matter down for trial, that the omission was realized.
Justice T.M. Wood held that the test to be applied is a two part one in which the moving party must first satisfy the court that “no prejudice would result that cannot be compensated for by costs or an adjournment”. The second part, having been developed through the case law, requires that where a limitation period has expired, the moving party must demonstrate “special circumstances” which would justify extending the limitation period.

Justice Wood wrote that:

[I]t must be remembered that both defendants have been aware of their exposure since the day after the incident. Both were aware of the order allowing them to be joined as defendants in the main action, and both participated fully in discoveries as third and fourth parties.

The Judge found that plaintiff’s counsel’s prompt move for leave to amend, and the fact that plaintiff’s first counsel was a generalist “whose practice was not attuned to the requirements of tort litigation”, lends credibility to the argument that this was a sin of omission rather than commission.

The Court found that the failure to join the defendants in a timely fashion was fully explained.

Wood J. held that: The conduct of the proceedings as a whole and the nature of the mistake in that context are in my view special circumstances sufficient when coupled with the lack of real prejudice to the defendants, to justify an extension of time to issue and serve a new statement of claim on the defendant number company and Mid-North to March 1, 2010, the date of service.

Thanks to Alex Lacko for reviewing this case.

Public Transit

2011-05-16T09:49:00.000-04:00

This blog was prepared by Jennifer Stirton.

The Insurance Act has been amended by Bill 173, the Better Tomorrow for Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2011, which received Royal Assent on May 12, 2011.

The amendments relate to incidents involving public transit and make two major changes. First, owners and drivers of public transit vehicles are not protected by subsections 267.5(1), (3) and (5) of the Insurance Act, which provide threshold protections and limit income loss claims, if the public transit vehicle does not collide with another automobile or any other object in the incident. In other words, public transit drivers and owners are not protected defendants unless there is a collision. The second major change is the addition of subsection 268(1.1), which provides that occupants of public transit vehicles who are injured are not entitled to statutory accident benefits if the public transit vehicle does not collide with another automobile or any other object.

These changes are clearly aimed at passengers who allege injury arising from incidents that do not involve collisions, such as sudden start/sudden stop claims. While it will reduce the cost of accident benefits being paid, it may result in an increase in tort actions against defendants who are no longer entitled to statutory protections.

Rule 53.03 does not Apply to Accident Benefits Assessors - Beasley not Followed

2011-05-11T12:00:00.000-04:00

You may recall that we blogged about Justice Moore's decision in Beasley v. Barrand, which held that accident benefits assessors could not testify as they had not complied with the new r. 53 pertaining to experts. A new decision was released on April 26, 2011 which refused to follow Beasley.

In McNeill v. Filthaut, 2011 ONSC 265 (S.C.J.), the defendants sought to call DAC assessors to testify at trial. The plaintiff objected on the basis that they had not provided r. 53.03 compliant reports.

Justice MacLeod-Beliveau held that r. 53.03 does not apply to individuals retained by non-parties to the litigation.

Justice MacLeod-Beliveau held that since r. 4.1.01 (acknowledgment of expert's duty) refers to experts "engaged by a party", it does not apply to experts retained by non-parties, such as accident benefits assessors. Interpreting the rules otherwise potentially deprives the Court of relevant evidence.

There are now two different lines of decisions regarding the testimony of non-party experts. It will be necessary for the Court of Appeal to clarify this important area of the law.

Costs to Unrepresented Litigant

2011-05-03T09:50:00.005-04:00

Mustang Investigations v. Ironside et al, 2010 ONSC 3444 (Div. Ct).

Thanks to Alex Lacko, articling student, for preparing this case summary.

The plaintiff appealed from a costs order in which the motion judge awarded the self-represented defendant a counsel fee of $20,000 on the basis that he had done work ordinarily done by a lawyer.

The parties made written submissions as to costs. Mustang submitted that Ironside should receive costs limited to disbursements in a net amount of $1,541. Ironside delivered two bills of costs, the larger one for $208,138.40, inclusive of disbursements. The motion judge disallowed $87,500 claimed by Ironside as being not a proper claim for costs. The motion judge then considered the leading authority on costs to be awarded to unrepresented litigants, Fong v. Chan (1999), 46 O.R. (3d) 330, (C.A.). The motion judge correctly set forth the two principles enunciated by Sharpe J.A. and the Court of Appeal in that case in the following language:

First, the self-represented litigant should not recover costs for the time and effort that any litigant would have to devote to the case. Second, costs should only be awarded to those litigants who can demonstrate that they devoted time and effort to do the work ordinarily done by a lawyer retained to conduct the litigation and that, as a result, they incurred an opportunity cost by foregoing remunerative activity.

The motion judge interpreted the second principle as requiring a self-represented litigant to simply show that he or she did work ordinarily done by a lawyer without any reference to incurring an opportunity cost by foregoing remunerative activity.

The issue on appeal was whether the motion judge applied the correct principles for awarding costs to a self-represented litigant.

Jennings J. delivered the judgment of the Divisional Court and found that a number of cases, while purporting to apply Fong, in fact introduced a “spin” on Sharpe J.A.’s proviso to the second principle which he found troubling.

Jennings J. found that the motion judge erred by ignoring the proviso regarding an opportunity cost and further, awarding the self-represented litigant the partial indemnity costs that the plaintiff could reasonably be expected to have paid to a lawyer had one been retained by Ironside.

Justice Jennings stated that the language used by Sharpe J.A. was clear and that in order to receive costs, a lay litigant must demonstrate (1) that he or she devoted time and effort to do the work ordinarily done by a lawyer, and (2) that as a result, the litigant incurred an opportunity cost by foregoing remunerative activity. He further stated that if an opportunity cost is proved, a self-represented litigant should only receive a moderate or reasonable allowance for the loss of time devoted to preparing and presenting the case.

Several trial judges as well as a master, seem to have interpreted Fong as saying that even in the absence of proof of an opportunity cost, one may assume that because the lay person was involved in the litigation preparing material that might otherwise be prepared by a lawyer, he or she should nevertheless be entitled to nominal costs. Jennings J. wrote that:

“With great respect to the master and those judges, I’m unable to find that the language in Fong permits an award to be made without the self-represented litigant demonstrating that, as a result of the lawyer-like work put in on the file, remunerative activity was foregone. Simply stated, no proof of opportunity cost, no nominal costs available.”

Jennings J. further stated that in the case that an injustice will result, he had two responses:

(1) It is difficult to see any injustices in compensating someone for a loss not incurred; and

(2) Regardless, the principle of stare decisis does not permit this court, or judges sitting in motions, or masters, to modify a decision of the Court of Appeal.

The appeal was allowed and the award of $20,000 for counsel fee on a partial indemnity basis was set aside.

Threshold Motion Successful

2011-04-27T12:02:00.001-04:00

Rajic v. Atkins, [2011] CanLII O.N.S.C. 1024 (S.C.J.)

In this Bill 59 action, the defendant brought a motion to have the action dismissed on the basis that the plaintiff failed to meet threshold after the jury retired to consider its verdict.

Justice Wilson granted the motion and dismissed the action. She found that the plaintiff was an unreliable historian and that there were comments in numerous medical reports about exaggeration, psychogenic pain and illness behavior. She found that the plaintiff’s self report could not be used as a basis for diagnosis because of the many inconsistencies in statements that he made. Since the plaintiff’s experts relied to a great extent on the truthfulness of what the plaintiff reported to them, she did not attach significant weight to their opinions.

The defendant had obtained surveillance of the plaintiff showing him engaged in various activities such as walking without a limp, carrying a 10lb bag of potatoes, clearing snow off his car, working under the hood of his car for 45 minutes, mowing the lawn, raking and bending down to pull weeds. Justice Wilson did not accept the explanation that he was having “one of his good days” when he was filmed by the investigator. Justice Wilson held that his sworn evidence at trial concerning his pain and limitations were inconsistent with the level of function demonstrated on the surveillance tapes.

Credibility is extremely important in a threshold motion and tools such as surveillance can be invaluable, as was seen in this case.

Vicarious liability of employers for sexual assault

2011-04-20T11:59:00.002-04:00

The Manitoba Court of Appeal has recently released a case dealing with vicarious liability of an employer for sexual assault by one of its employees. The Court provides a useful summary of the principles used in determining vicarious liability, as well as a summary of case law involving employers.

In Robertson v. Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc., [2011] M.J. No. 24 (C.A), the plaintiff was an executive assistant who made plans at work with her supervisor (Hart) to socialize after work to celebrate her birthday. They went to a restaurant for dinner and then to Hart’s residence where he sexually assaulted the plaintiff. The plaintiff notified the employer about the assault, who investigated the incident and terminated the Hart’s employment. The plaintiff sued both the Hart and the employer. The employer was successful in a motion to strike the Statement of Claim and the plaintiff appealed.

The test for a finding of vicarious liability was set out by the Supreme Court in Bazley v. Curry, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 534, which the Manitoba Court of Appeal summarized as follows:

1. The test for vicarious liability should focus on whether the employer’s enterprise and empowerment of the employee materially increased the risk of the sexual assault and hence the harm;
2. The enterprise and employment must not only provide the locale or the bare opportunity for the employee to commit a wrong, it must materially enhance the risk in the sense of significantly contributing to it;
3. The appropriate inquiry is whether the employee’s wrongful act was so closely connected to the employment relationship that the imposition of vicarious liability is justified in policy and principle;
4. In determining the sufficiency of the connection between the employer’s creation or enhancement of the risk and wrong complained of, subsidiary factors will be considered such as a) the opportunity that the enterprise afforded the employee to abuse his/her power; b) the extent to which the wrongful act may have furthered the employer’s aims; c) the extent to which the wrongful act was related to friction, confrontation or intimacy inherent in the employer’s enterprise; d) the extent of power; and e) the vulnerability of potential victims to wrongful exercise of the employee’s power.
5. An incidental attack by an employee that merely happens to take place on the employer’s premises during working hours will scarcely justify holding the employer liable because such an attack is unlikely to be related to the business the employer is conducting or what the employee was asked to do, and, hence, to any risk that was created.

The court held that the facts did not support a finding that the employment went beyond providing a bare opportunity, noting that the assault did not occur in the workplace or during work hours, there was no allegation of inappropriate behaviour on prior occasions, there was no allegation that Hart exercised any power in relation to the plaintiff beyond that which is required in every supervisory position, and there was no allegation that the plaintiff was particularly vulnerable to the wrongful exercise of the Hart’s power.

Motion to add defendants after limitation period dismissed

2011-04-13T12:00:00.003-04:00

Higgins v. Barrie (City of), 2011 O.N.S.C. 2233 (S.C.J.)

This was a motion by the plaintiff to amend the Statement of Claim to add additional defendants after the expiry of the limitation period on the basis of discoverability.

The plaintiff slipped and fell on March 13, 2006 and alleged that the City of Barrie was negligent in failing to maintain the site of the slip and fall. Barrie’s defence was filed May 13, 2008. Examinations for Discovery took place August 5, 2010 and September 13, 2010. At the examination for discovery of the City representative, counsel advised that the proposed defendant had been contracted by the City to remove snow from the area where the plaintiff fell. The contractor had in turn subcontracted to the second proposed defendant. On November 25, 2010, Barrie’s counsel advised of the name of the subcontractor. Plaintiff’s counsel performed a corporate search on November 30, 2010 and brought a motion to add the proposed defendants December 14, 2010.

Justice DiTomaso dismissed the plaintiff’s motion. The court noted that the passing of the limitation period gives rise to a presumption of prejudice. There is a reverse onus and evidentiary burden on the plaintiff. In the circumstances, the plaintiff’s motion materials failed to disclose any evidence of pre-discovery diligence on the part of the plaintiff or his counsel to determine the identity of the proposed defendants. The motion materials failed to disclose any evidence of any reason why the plaintiff could not have taken any steps to discover the identity of the proposed defendants prior to the examination for discovery. Justice DiTomaso held that waiting 4 ½ years until the examination for discovery of a City representative to make inquiries about potential additional defendants did not amount to due diligent or reasonable efforts. The affidavit of the plaintiff’s legal assistant was totally deficient in providing evidence of due diligence or reasonable efforts made to ascertain the involvement of the proposed defendants or any other defendants. The plaintiff therefore had not met his onus and the motion was dismissed.

Justice DiTomaso’s decision is extremely useful for proposed defendants responding to a plaintiff’s motion to amend. There is a very helpful summary of the case law with respect to adding defendants and the due diligence requirement.

Thank you to Ted Key for bringing this case to our attention.

Gross Negligence

2011-04-06T13:07:00.000-04:00

The Court of Appeal for Ontario has upheld a decision which found that the City of Mississauga’s response to a winter storm event was reasonable, Billings v. Mississauga (City), 2011 ONCA 247, [2011] O.J. No. 1449 (C.A.).

The plaintiff, Douglas Billings, claimed injuries suffered in a slip and fall accident on a City sidewalk following a major snow and ice storm.

The sidewalk in question had not been cleared of snow and ice within 36 hours after the winter storm. The City’s snow removal policy required that snow and ice be removed from sidewalks within 36 hours and the City had failed to meet that target. Nevertheless, the trial judge found that the storm had been an extraordinary event. The trial judge carefully reviewed the City’s systems, personnel and policies for dealing with snow storms and concluded that the City’s response to the storm was "completely reasonable." The City’s response to the storm did not amount to “gross negligence”, which is the standard mandated by statute.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge’s conclusion.

This case should assist municipalities in defending claims of personal injury caused by snow or ice on a municipal sidewalk. It is interesting that the City was found to have acted reasonably even though it did not meet its objective of clearing snow and ice from sidewalks within 36 hours after a storm event.

Action dismissed due to failure to comply with Municipal Act notice provision

2011-03-30T12:00:00.000-04:00

Zogjani v. Toronto (City), [2011] O.J. No. 1002 (S.C.J.)

In this slip and fall case against the City of Toronto, the City brought a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff failed to comply with the 10 day notice period provided by section 44(10) of the Municipal Act. The plaintiff slipped and fell on December 22, 2005 on snow and ice on a Municipal sidewalk. She consulted a lawyer in February 2006 and notice was provided to the City on March 1, 2006. The plaintiff swore that until she met with the lawyer on February 28, 2006, she was not aware of the 10 day notice requirement in section 44. Since the plaintiff failed to comply with section 44(10), it was her onus to show that she fit within subsection 44(12) of the Municipal Act, which provides that the failure to give notice is not a bar to the action if a judge finds that there is reasonable excuse and the Municipality is not prejudiced in its defence.

The City’s argument was that because it did not receive notice of the claim in a timely manner, the City’s investigator was unable to investigate the location promptly and could not observe or record the conditions of the location at the time of the accident. The plaintiff’s response was that snow would have melted in the days immediately following the incident and so even if the 10 day notice period had been met, there was no practical prejudice to the City.

The City’s field investigator swore an Affidavit indicating that he patrolled the area 4 days before the date of loss and 6 days after the date of loss. If he had been notified immediately, he would have been able to recall what the road and sidewalk conditions looked like during his patrols; however, because the City did not receive notice until 2 ½ months later, he was unable to recall what the location looked like at the time of his patrols.

Justice Lauwers was satisfied that the Municipality was practically prejudiced by the effect of the delay on the field investigator’s memory. He granted summary judgment.

At times it may seem that section 44(10) is a limitation period without teeth; however, in the right circumstances and with the right evidence proffered on a motion for summary judgment, section 44(10) can be a useful tool with which to dispose of an action at an early date.

The test for compensable psychological injury

2011-03-23T12:00:00.002-04:00

Thank you to Jennifer Stirton for this week's contribution.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that plaintiffs seeking damages for psychological injury independent of any claim for physical injury are required to show that they suffer from a “recognizable psychiatric illness”.

In Healey v. Lakeridge Health Corp., [2011] O.J. No. 231 (C.A.), the plaintiffs received notices to be tested for tuberculosis as a result of exposure to two infected patients at the defendants’ facility. The plaintiffs alleged that these notices caused them mental anxiety, depression, fear, shock, anger, distress and sleeplessness. They feared for the health and safety of friends and family and temporarily disrupted their social and family lives.

The plaintiffs admitted that the harm suffered fell short of a “recognizable psychiatric illness”. Rather, the plaintiffs alleged that the 2008 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Mustapha v. Culligan, in which the plaintiff found dead flies in an unopened bottle of water and was very upset by the idea that his family had been consuming tainted water, lowered the threshold for compensable psychological injury.

The Court of Appeal concluded that although there were some academic and judicial opinions to the contrary, there is a strong line of authority that to recover damages for psychological injury independent of physical injury, plaintiffs are required to show that they suffer from a recognizable psychiatric illness. The Court of Appeal concluded:

“As has been repeatedly stated in the case law, there are strong policy reasons for imposing some sort of threshold. It seems to me quite appropriate for the law to decline monetary compensation for the distress and upset caused by the unfortunate but inevitable stresses of life in a civilized society and to decline to open the door to recovery for all manner of psychological insult or injury. Given the frequency with which everyday experiences cause transient distress, the multi-factorial causes of psychological upset, and the highly subjective nature of an individual’s reaction to such stresses and strains, such claims involve serious questions of evidentiary rigour. The law quite properly insists upon an objective threshold to screen such claims and to refuse compensation unless the injury is serious and prolonged.”

The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the threshold for compensable psychological injury is the subject of debate and that it could be revisited on a proper factual foundation. For the moment, however, the test for compensable psychological injury remains unchanged.

The Appraisal Process in s. 128 of the Insurance Act

2011-03-16T12:00:00.000-04:00

Letts v. Aviva Canada Inc., [2010] O.J. No. 5801 (S.C.J.)

This case deals with the appraisal process in s. 128 of the Insurance Act.

The plaintiffs made a fire loss claim and prepared a 56 page Request to Admit which contained an inventory of items they allege were destroyed or damage by the fire. They argued the insurer was required to specify the items took issue with as a condition precedent to the appraisal process.

Justice James disagreed:

While this may make sense in an appropriate case, I do not agree with the insureds that the insurer must provide a detailed response to the claim of the insureds before being able to invoke the appraisal mechanism contemplated by Section 128 of the Insurance Act.

Section 148 of the Act sets out what needs to be done prior to the appraisal process: a specific demand must be made and proof of loss delivered. Nothing else is required.

Proportionality in Discovery

2011-03-09T12:00:00.001-05:00

Master Short recently conducted an exhaustive review of the principles of proportionality in discovery. In Warman v. National Post (2011), 103 O.R. (3d) 174 (S.C.J.), the defendant brought a motion seeking production of a mirror copy of the plaintiff’s computer hard drive. The action was a libel action brought under the Simplified Procedure.

Master Short held that the new rules changing the test from “relating to” to “relevant to” a matter in issue signal a shift away from the broad and liberal discovery practice that has existed in Ontario. The default rule should start with proportionality and a recognition that not all conceivably relevant facts are discoverable in every case. Master Short adopts an eight factor proportionality test for e-discovery used in an American case (Rowe Entertainment v. William Morris):

1. The specificity of the discovery requests;
2. The likelihood of discovering critical information;
3. The availability of such information from other sources;
4. The purposes for which the responding party maintains the requested data;
5. The relative benefit to the parties of obtaining the information;
6. The total cost associated with production;
7. The relative ability of each party to control costs and its incentive to do so;
8. The resources available to each party.

Master Short held that although relevancy should remain a threshold requirement, proportionality should replace relevancy as the most important principle guiding discovery.

This decision will no doubt garner attention as a guideline for discovery. It will be interesting to see if the eight factors become the new standard for discovery in general or limited to e-discovery.

The discoverability principle in third party claims

2011-02-23T12:00:00.002-05:00

White v. Mannen, 2011 ONSC 1058 (S.C.J.)

This was a motion by the third party, Brant County, for summary judgment on the basis that the action against it was commenced out of time.

The main action arose out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on May 22, 2004. The plaintiff was a passenger in the defendant's vehicle, which crested a hill and swerved to avoid a parked car, leaving the roadway and striking a tree. In the third party claim, the defendant alleged the road and hill obstructed his view.

The claim was issued December 2, 2005 and served on the defendant February 21, 2006. The third party claim was issued September 24, 2009. The defendant argued that it was only after examinations for discovery and receipt of an engineering opinion that he discovered he had a cause of action against the municipality.

Justice Gordon conducted a useful review of the case law with respect to discoverability, and specifically the due diligence required: a party must only learn of sufficient facts upon which to commence a claim and need not be in a position to prove it. Legal advice or an expert opinion is not necessarily required, and an examination for discovery may not be required. In resisting a motion for summary judgment, the responding party must address the due diligence requirement and provide full disclosure.

Justice Gordon held that the defendant knew at the time of the accident that there was restricted visibility on the hill. The failure of the defendant to tender evidence on due diligence was fatal to his position. The third party claim was well out of time and was dismissed.

This decision is a good review of the principles pertaining to discoverability and should be reviewed both by those pursuing third party claims and those defending them.

Tavern Liability - Section 39 of the Liquor Licence Act

2011-02-16T12:59:00.001-05:00

Dickerson v. 1610396 Ontario Inc. (Carey’s Pub and Grill), 2010 O.N.C.A. 894 (CanLII)

Section 39 of the Liquor License Act creates civil liability for commercial establishments selling liquor. Section 39 reads as follows:

39. The following rules apply if a person or an agent or employee of a person sells liquor to or for a person whose condition is such that the consumption of liquor would apparently intoxicate the person or increase the person’s intoxication such that he or she would be in danger of causing injury to himself or herself or injury or damage to another person or the property of another person.

In Dickerson, the Court of Appeal had occasion to comment on the standard of care set out in section 39. The Court disagreed with the plaintiff’s assertion that the standard is breached by simply overserving a patron to the point of intoxication. The Court held that section 39 requires a risk assessment by the commercial establishment. The plain and ordinary meaning of the section describes the level of overservice that attracts liability because of the risk it creates. The overservice must produce the patron’s intoxication or increase it sufficiently that the patron will be in danger of injuring another person. Section 39 requires only that the risk of injury be reasonably foreseeable, not that the type or kind of injury actually suffered be reasonably foreseeable. In addition, this section requires only that there be a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury to another person, not that the person injured be within the category of persons foreseeably at risk.

Those involved in tavern liability cases before juries may want to review this decision as a useful precedent for the charge to a jury in a tavern case, as well as the appropriate questions to be put to the jury.

D&O Insurance: The Policy Prevails

2011-02-09T22:28:00.000-05:00

The Ontario Courts have reiterated the old insurance law adage that the wording of a policy prevails.

In Dunn v. Chubb Insurance, 2011 ONCA 36, the Court of Appeal recently upheld an application judge's decision requiring the insurer Chubb to pay 90% of certain defence costs of the respondents Dunn and Beatty, pursuant to a directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy.

This proceeding arose out of allegations against Dunn and Beatty, former Nortel directors and/or officers. They allegedly committed some "Wrongful Acts" (a term defined in the policy) in 2001 and then again in 2003. The policy was a "claims made" policy and covered the period 2001.

The insurer Chubb agreed to provide defences for Dunn and Beatty for proceedings relating to the 2001 conduct. However, the insurer refused to pay the full defence costs for other proceedings arising out of both the 2001 and 2003 conduct. The insurer argued that it was not responsible for the defence costs to the extent that those costs relate exclusively to the 2003 conduct.

There was however in the policy a special endorsement requiring the insurer to pay 90% of defence costs where there is a claim that includes both covered and uncovered matters. However, the insurer took the position that the claims still had to fall within the period of 2001 and that the endorsement applied to allegations against insureds of wrongful conduct engaged in by an insured which is excluded from coverage, e.g. allegations of wrongful conduct in some capacity other than as a director and/or officer.

In the result, the application's judge and the Court of Appeal agreed that the endorsement in the policy applies and that the insurer is to pay 90% of defence costs per the terms of the endorsement.

This case emphasizes once again the importance of the terms of the policy itself.

Negligent Supervision of Children

2011-02-03T12:55:00.001-05:00

Can parents or grandparents be liable for negligently supervising children in their care?

In Connolly (Litigation guardian of) v. Riopelle, [2010] O.J. No. 5798 (S.C.J.), the eight year old plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident. The defendant driver brought a third party claim against the boy’s grandfather, alleging that the grandfather was negligent in his supervision of the child and this caused or contributed to the accident. The child was visiting his grandparents’ home and was left outside to play alone when the accident occurred.

The grandfather brought a motion to strike the claim. He alleged that the child had been taught appropriate safety rules, was generally well behaved and did not require a greater level of vigilance than other children his age.

The motion was dismissed.

The Court held that is was open to the trier of fact to conclude that the grandfather ought to have looked out from time to time to ensure the child was adhering to the rules that were set, and there was an absence of evidence as to the accepted standard of care of other caregivers in the neighbourhood where the accident occurred.

Justice James concluded that the question of negligent supervision was better assessed in a trial setting.

Threshold

2011-01-05T12:54:00.001-05:00

Tyrell v. Bruce, [2010] O.J. No. 5245 (S.C.J.).

The defendants brought a motion alleging that the plaintiff failed to meet the threshold pursuant to section 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The plaintiff was taken to hospital the night of the accident and released. He did not see his family doctor for 2 months. He continued taking courses at college and worked a telemarketing job and at a convenience store for a period of time. Over the years, he saw several health care providers and reported to them complaints of pain in his head, neck, shoulders, back, legs, knees and ankles. Various x-rays and MRIs showed no other evidence of injury other than soft tissue strain and sprain. The court held that most of the medical evidence relied on subjective reporting by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was not a believable person. The plaintiff recorded four rap music videos which had been placed on YouTube which showed him able to walk and move about without difficulty. His explanation was that it was a good day for him.

The court found that the plaintiff claimed to be injured when it suited him; for example, when he was receiving Ontario Disability Support Program Benefits. On the other hand, when he ran into a legal problem with the criminal justice system he got a letter from the health care provider to say that he was financially independent and working.

The court held that the plaintiff had not proven on a balance of probabilities that he had a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.

Credibility of the plaintiff is extremely important. Tyrell shows that presenting facts from a variety of sources, such as medical records, social services records, social networking and the internet can go a long way in assisting the defence.

Automobile Policy Exclusions

2010-12-29T13:55:00.000-05:00

The Superior Court of Justice has re-emphasized the requirement that an insurer must take appropriate steps to bring exclusions to the insured’s attention where the effect of an exclusion will have the harsh result of denying coverage under an automobile policy.

In GMAC Lease Co. Corp v. Lombard Insurance (2007), 87 O.R. (3d) 813, at paragraph 9, the Court of Appeal held that an insurer must provide the insured with a copy of every endorsement, per section 232(3) of the Insurance Act. The fact that an insurer can provide a certificate of insurance instead of the policy does not take away the duty imposed by section 232(3).

The obligation then is to provide the policy or certificate in an improved form as well as a copy of every endorsement. Since the insurer had failed to comply with section 232(3) of the Insurance Act by failing to deliver a copy of the OPCF 28A endorsement, excluded driver, the insurer cannot rely on the exclusion.

Justice Chapnick more recently in Chen Estate v. Chung, [2010] O.J. No. 5086 (SCJ), reiterated the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in GMAC Lease Co. Corp. v. Lombard Insurance.

Statutory Third Party

2010-12-22T12:00:00.001-05:00

Ahmed v. Maharaj, [2010] O.J. No. 4922 (S.C.J.)

Here's a decision that might be useful to counsel for a Statutory Third Party. There were two issues in this motion:

1. Whether the Statutory Third Party is entitled to pursue a crossclaim against one of the co-defendants; and
2. Whether the Statutory Third Party could be compelled to answer questions on examination for discovery about why it denied coverage.

Justice Stewart held as follows:

1. The Statutory Third Party is entitled to bring a crossclaim, since the Insurance Act does not expressly limit it to the right to file a Statement of Defence;
2. The Statutory Third Party is not required to answer questions about why coverage was denied. Generally issues of coverage and issues of liability are to be kept separate. A plaintiff who wishes to challenge a denial of coverage may do so following judgment pursuant to s. 258(1) of the Insurance Act but until that happens, issues of coverage are generally not relevant.

Settlement of Accident Benefits is Not an Admission Threshold Met in Tort

2010-12-15T12:33:00.000-05:00

Anand v. Belanger, 2010 ONSC 2345 (CanLii)

The plaintiff was injured when she was struck by a stolen vehicle. State Farm was the plaintiff’s accident benefits provider, and was named as a tort defendant pursuant to the uninsured motorist provisions of the policy.

State Farm paid IRBs until the 104 week mark, when it terminated benefits on the basis that Ms. Anand did not suffer a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited by education, training or experience. At a mediation, the parties settled past and future IRBs for $100,000. Ms. Anand signed a release that included a provision that the settlement was not an admission of liability.

At the tort trial, the plaintiff sought to preclude State Farm from alleging the plaintiff did not meet threshold on the basis that it had paid for past and future IRBs, which constituted an implicit admission.

Justice Stinson held that payment of IRBs does not amount to an admission in the tort action. The plaintiff signed a release specifically agreeing that the settlement was not an admission of liability. In addition, in its capacity as the accident benefits carrier, State Farm had contractual duties and a duty of utmost good faith in dealing with its insured, Ms. Anand. As a tort defendant, State Farm owed no such duties. Accordingly, State Farm was free to argue the plaintiff did not meet threshold.

Justice Stinson's decision is sensible, especially given the differing characteristics of accident benefits and tort. It also underscores the importance of including a paragraph in releases that settlement is not an admission of liability.

Defence "Life Care" Assessment

2010-12-13T13:26:00.007-05:00

This entry was prepared by Alexandra Lacko, articling student.

In the case of Vanderidder v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2010 ONSC 6222, the moving party sought an order compelling the plaintiff, Vanessa Vanderidder to participate in a life care plan assessment by a certified life care planner.

The action arose out of an accident in which the plaintiff sustained an injury when a rock fragment fell from a truck, deflected from the road surface, went through her open car window and struck her in the head. The plaintiff alleged that she sustained serious injuries which caused permanent and serious disfigurement and serious impairments of important physical, mental and psychological functions. She also alleged that she continued to suffer and required treatment, and would continue to suffer from the effects of her injuries for an indefinite period of time. The plaintiff claimed damages for future health care costs as a result of the effects of the injuries on the activity of the plaintiff.

In support of Vanessa Vanderidder’s claim for future health care costs, counsel for the plaintiff served a future care cost report authored by Keith C. Hayes, Ph.D. The report was analysed by an actuary and placed a present value on the plaintiff’s future health care needs at $719,901.00.

As a result of the substantial monetary claim of the plaintiff, the moving party wished to have Vanessa participate in a life care assessment/future care cost assessment by an individual who had a Bachelor of Science in Occupational Therapy and was defined as a “practitioner” pursuant to s. 52 of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23. The basis for the moving party’s motion for the life care assessment/future care cost assessment was prejudice.

The position of the responding party, Vanessa Vanderidder, was that the moving party had not deduced any evidence that the requested assessment was necessary to aid a health practitioner as a diagnostic tool.

Plaintiff’s counsel asked Justice Granger to recuse himself from hearing the motion on the grounds that in Kozhani v. Gelbart, [2010] O.J. No. 1348, Justice Granger ordered the plaintiff to submit to a life care assessment/future care cost assessment by an occupational therapist without a health practitioner requiring the assessment as a diagnostic tool. Plaintiff’s counsel suggested that based on Justice Granger’s earlier decision, there was a reasonable apprehension of bias and that Granger J. should recuse himself from hearing the motion. Justice Granger went through the test for bias and found that plaintiff counsel’s apprehension was an apprehension of lack of success rather than an apprehension of bias and Justice Granger did not recuse himself.

In coming to his decision on the assessment, Justice Granger underwent an analysis of the case law in the area of non-medical expert assessment. Justice Granger stated that:

It would seem to me that if Vanessa Vanderidder elects to place before the court evidence concerning her future care needs as determined by a non-health practitioner, she can hardly be heard to claim that it would be unfair to order her to submit to such an assessment by a person of the choosing of the defence.

The Court concluded that “fairness can only be achieved by ordering Vanessa Vanderidder to participate in a life care assessment by a person other than a “health practitioner” notwithstanding that there is a lack of evidence before me from a health practitioner that such an assessment is needed by a health practitioner as a “diagnostic aid.”

The plaintiff was therefore ordered to participate in a life care plan assessment by the certified life care planner and occupational therapist. The Court’s goal was to achieve fairness in the trial process in order to create a “level playing field” for trial.

An Interesting Twist on Beasley v. Barrand

2010-12-08T12:28:00.001-05:00

The fallout from the Beasley v. Barrand decision continues. You may recall that in Beasley, the Court refused to permit expert evidence at trial from accident benefits assessors.

In Jeffrey v. Baker, [2010] O.J. No. 4415 (S.C.J.), the defendant sought to compel the plaintiff to attend at an orthopaedic IME. She had already attended at two IMEs with a physiatrist and psychiatrist, and the defendant had lost a motion in 2009 to compel two additional examinations.

Justice Quigley allowed the motion and ordered the plaintiff to attend the orthopaedic assessment. One of the reasons for allowing the IME was that prior to enactment of the new rule 53 the defendant would have been at liberty to call accident benefits assessors to give expert evidence at trial, but given the rule change this is no longer permitted, as made clear in Beasley. The Court was satisfied there was a real risk the defendant would be left without evidence to refute the plaintiff’s claims if the orthopaedic IME was not permitted.

Tort Defendant May Call SABS Assessors as Fact Witnesses

2010-12-01T12:59:00.002-05:00

You may recall that we recently blogged on the case of Beasley v. Barrand, in which Justice Moore held that accident benefits assessors could not be called as experts to testify for the tort defendant at trial. The link is here:

http://ontarioinsurancelaw.blogspot.com/2010/10/tort-defendant-not-permitted-to-call.html

In Anand v. State Farm (unreported decision, April 23, 2010), Justice Stinson followed Justice Moore’s decision, but held that the accident benefits assessors could be called as fact witnesses. They were not permitted to testify about their conclusions or opinions, but could testify about their observations of the plaintiff.

The Hills Are Alive... With Danger

2010-11-25T08:35:00.000-05:00

Deering v. Scugog (Township), [2010] O.J. No. 4229 (S.C.J.).
Howden, J. discussed the duty that road authorities owe to motorists in the case of Deering v. Scugog (Township), [2010] O.J. No. 4229 (S.C.J.), a case involving a motor vehicle accident that occurred on August 10, 2004, which left two teenage sisters severely injured.

Shannon Deering, the older sister who was 19 years old at the time, was driving her 2002 Pontiac Grand AM up a hill on Coates Road West in Oshawa, when the headlights of an eastbound vehicle appeared over the crest of the hill. The vehicle moved to the right, then arced left, and finally veered to the right over the shoulder of the road.

Justice Howden ultimately found that the segment of Coates Rd. West was in a state of non-repair because in his view, the hill where the accident happened “represented a virtually unique source of danger to ordinary drivers, particularly at night due to its combination of features likely to create an emergency situation with little or no preview time for westbound drivers to deal safely with it”.

At the time of the accident, Coates Road West was paved and flat for close to two kilometers, after which it climbed and fell away over three hills. The third hill was the most significant, and in August 2004, the road had no lane markings, no signage, and an un-posted speed limit of 80 km/hr.

In July 2004, the road was involved in a rehabilitation project to improve the road’s base and surface. The aim of the rehabilitation project was to provide an adequate sub-structure and surface treatment. By July 20, 2004, a dark-coloured sealant or emulsion was applied to the road as the final phase of the project. Immediately afterwards the road was re-opened in its otherwise previous state which was unsigned, unlit and unlined.

After a review of the relevant case law, Justice Howden determined that road authorities have a duty to ordinary motorists to keep their roads in reasonable repair, including the type and location of the road. The standard of care uses as the measure of reasonable conduct the ordinary reasonable driver and the duty to repair arises wherever an unreasonable risk of harm exists on the roadway for which obvious cues on or near the road are not present and no warning is provided, subject to certain defences.

Howden, J. stated that “The ordinary motorist includes those of average range of driving ability – not simply the perfect, the prescient, or the especially perceptive driver, or one with exceptionally fast reflexes, but the ordinary driver who is of average intelligence, pays attention, uses caution when conditions warrant, but is human and sometimes makes mistakes.”

He further declared that “the duty to repair under section 44 should no longer ignore the need in circumstances of pre-design age roads near areas of urban change and growth to incorporate assessments of safety measures into road rehabilitation and reconstruction projects”.

This blog contribution by articling student Alex Lacko.

Filing Expert Reports as Exhibits at Trial - Part 2

2010-11-10T10:00:00.002-05:00

In our last post, we discussed the Clark v. Zigrossi decision, where Justice Brown held that whether a party can file an expert’s report and call viva voce evidence from that expert is a matter of the court’s discretion.

In coming to this conclusion, Justice Brown undertook an analysis of the origins of the position that the report of an expert witness who testifies does not become an exhibit unless counsel agree or the court so orders. The approach was traced back to the 1974 Court of Appeal decision in Ferraro v. Lee (1974), 2 O.R. (2d) 417 (C.A.), in which the purpose of s. 52(2) of the Evidence Act was examined and it was found that the intention of the Legislature was to provide for the introduction into evidence of the medical report so that the party tendering it might be relieved from having to call the doctor to give evidence. It was then reasoned that a party cannot therefore proceed both to file the report and call the doctor. In drawing this conclusion, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the earlier case of Snyder v. Siutters, [1970] 3 O.R. 789 (H.C.J.), in which the trial judge granted leave to file the reports of doctors who were called to give viva voce evidence.

In Snyder v. Siutters, Wright J. held that it was in the interests of the administration of justice not only that the medical reports should be available in their entirety, but that if they are available, viva voce evidence of the practitioner should also be available. He went on to describe three great advantages of making both the reports and the experts’ testimony available to the jury, which Justice Brown found to possess a certain attractiveness. The advantages being that:

1) it enables a fixed and coherent opinion by the doctor to be put before the Court;
2) it enables the doctor, if he testifies to explain the technical language, and any other matters that arise by reason of evidence or other developments of the trial, and it gives the opposite party the right to cross-examine; and
3) it preserves for the jury room in an exact way the testimony of the doctor.

The Court of Appeal has subsequently interpreted Ferraro v. Lee and held that it is a matter of judicial discretion as to whether a party may both call an expert and file his report.

Thanks to our articling student, Alexandra Lacko, for contributing this post.

Filing Expert Reports as Exhibits at Trial - Part 1

2010-11-03T10:00:00.000-04:00

Does Expert Testimony Preclude the Expert’s Report as an Exhibit?

In Clark v. Zigrossi, [2010] O.J. No. 3954 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), Justice Brown made a mid-trial ruling on whether an expert report can be filed as an exhibit even though the expert will be testifying at trial.

The plaintiff was seeking damages for injuries he alleged to have suffered in a July 2003 collision with the car driven by the defendant. The defendant had admitted liability and the jury was to assess damages. The plaintiff retained as an expert, Dr. Joseph Kwok, an orthopaedic surgeon who had prepared an expert report based on his examination of the plaintiff. The plaintiff served Dr. Kwok’s report on the defendant and gave the defendant notice pursuant to s. 52(2) of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23. The plaintiff indicated his intention to adduce expert evidence “by either calling them to testify or by filing their reports.” At trial, plaintiff’s counsel sought leave both to call Dr. Kwok to give viva voce evidence and to mark his expert report as an exhibit, with copies of the report being provided to the jury so that they could follow the doctor’s evidence. Defendant’s counsel objected and submitted that the plaintiff must elect either to file the report or elicit viva voce evidence from the doctor. Defendant’s counsel acknowledged that if Dr. Kwok’s report was to be filed instead of him giving oral evidence at trial, she would require his presence to cross-examine him on his report, so Dr. Kwok’s attendance at trial would be necessary regardless of which path was taken.

Justice Brown held that the court possessed the discretion to permit an expert’s report to be filed where the expert intended to give viva voce evidence at trial. The needs of jurors to follow and understand the evidence should inform the exercise of judicial discretion.

Ultimately, in the circumstances of the case, Justice Brown did not think that the jury would encounter much difficulty in following Dr. Kwok’s evidence without having copies of his report and so it was not filed as an exhibit.

Justice Brown’s analysis affirms that there is no hard and fast rule that exists as to whether a party must elect either to file an expert’s report or call the expert to give viva voce evidence. In a jury trial, whether a party may call a health care expert to testify and also file his report as an exhibit remains a matter of discretion for the trial judge to determine.

The decision contains a good summary of the case law regarding filing expert reports and calling viva voce evidence. In our next post we will summarize those decisions.

Thanks to our articling student, Alexandra Lacko, for contributing this post.

Tort Defendant Not Permitted to Call Evidence from Plaintiff's Accident Benefits Assessors

2010-10-28T09:28:00.000-04:00

Beasley and Scott v. Barrand, 2010 ONSC 2095 (S.C.J.)

This case involves the interpretation of the new requirements for experts pursuant to Rule 53.

The tort defendants in this trial sought to call evidence from three doctors who had assessed the plaintiff on behalf of his accident benefits carrier. The defendants made efforts to have the doctors brought into compliance with the new Rule 53.03 by having them sign an Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty.

Justice Moore refused to allow the doctors to testify given that they could not comply with Rule 53.03. They were retained by an insurer that was not before the court, were not treating physicians and their instructions were not clear from the evidence. Justice Moore Held:

I am not to be heard to state that experts retained by accident benefits insurers cannot give opinion evidence in a tort action; rather, I say that such experts should first comply with Rule 53.03. I say “should” for there may be cases where that is not possible and then the court may consider relieving against non-compliance to ensure a fair adjudication of the issues upon their merits but this is not one of those cases.

This case places great constraints on the ability of the defence to call evidence with respect to the plaintiff’s injuries. It imposes a high hurdle for the defendants in order to call evidence relevant to the plaintiff’s injuries. Perhaps the accident benefits assessors could be called as fact witnesses which would mean r. 53.03 would not apply. It appears that this would be an area that would benefit from appellant intervention.

Before hiring a lawyer...

2010-10-27T09:13:00.000-04:00

The GlobeandMail.com has an interesting article entitled Before hiring a lawyer, be sure to do your homework, by Tony Wilson.
You can read it at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/your-business/start/tony-wilson/before-hiring-a-lawyer-be-sure-to-do-your-homework/article1771820/

The Supreme Court of Canada on a Duty to Defend - part 3

2010-10-21T09:26:00.001-04:00

Justice Rothstein, for the Supreme Court of Canada in Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada, 2010 S.C.C. 33., helpfully affirmed that CGL insurance policies are most typically written in three sections, being (i) coverage, (ii) exclusions and (iii) exceptions to the exclusions.

Within the first section, the onus is on the insured to show that the pleadings fall within the initial grant of coverage.

The next section, exclusions, should be read in light of the initial grant of coverage and do not create coverage in themselves. Exclusions only preclude coverage when the claim otherwise falls within the initial grant of coverage.

The third section, exceptions to exclusions, also do not create coverage but bring an otherwise excluded claim back within coverage where the claim fell within the initial grant of coverage in the first place.
Justice Rothstein concludes that the pleadings reveal a possibility of “property damage” and also sufficiently allege an “accident” such that the claim in the pleadings falls within the initial grant of coverage provided by the policy. The insurer, Lombard, then argued that the “work performed” exclusion precludes coverage. Lombard argued that there was no “subcontractor exception” to the exception and therefore work performed by subcontractors was also excluded. However, Justice Rothstein concluded that the exclusion did not clearly exclude subcontractors’ work and that there is a possibility of coverage so that the duty to defend is triggered.

This decision helpfully sets out the law in this complex area in a clear and succinct way. Hopefully this will help eliminate some of the confusion.

The Supreme Court of Canada on a Duty to Defend - part 2

2010-10-15T10:23:00.001-04:00

“Leaky condominiums” have become notorious in British Columbia. In this case, Progressive Homes served as a general contractor and built several housing complexes. Several actions were initiated against Progressive Homes alleging significant damage to the housing complexes caused by water leaking into each of the buildings. Progressive Homes sought a defence to these actions from its insurer, Lombard, pursuant to commercial general liability insurance policies.

The policies require Lombard to defend and indemnify Progressive Homes when Progressive is legally obligated to pay damages because of property damage caused by an occurrence or accident. Lombard refused to defend the claims and Progressive brought an application for a declaration that Lombard is under a duty to defend.

Justice Rothstein went on to declare that an insurer is required to defend a claim where the facts alleged in the pleadings, if proven to be true, would require the insurer to indemnify the insured to the claim. It is irrelevant whether the allegations in the pleadings can be proven in evidence. What is required is the mere possibility that the claim falls within the insurance policy. In examining the pleadings to determine whether the claim falls within the scope of coverage, the parties to the insurance contract should not be bound by the labels selected by the plaintiff but by the true nature or substance of the claim.

Justice Rothstein, for the Supreme Court of Canada, reiterated some significant principles of insurance policy interpretation, including that when the language of the policy in unambiguous, the court should give effect to the clear language and should read the contract as a whole. Where the language of the insurance policy is ambiguous, courts should prefer interpretations that are consistent with the reasonable expectations of the parties and courts should avoid interpretations that would give rise to an unrealistic result. Where these rules of construction failed to resolve an ambiguity, courts will construe the policy contra proferentem. Subsumed by the contra proferentem rule is that coverage provisions should be interpreted broadly and exclusion clauses narrowly.

Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada, 2010 S.C.C. 33.

The Supreme Court of Canada on a Duty to Defend - part 1

2010-10-12T10:19:00.005-04:00

Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada held, by unanimous decision, that an insurer will be obligated to defend a claim where the facts alleged in the pleadings, if proven to be true, would require the insurer to indemnify the insured for the claim regardless of whether the allegations in the pleadings can be proven in evidence. What is required is the mere possibility that a claim falls within the insurance policy. Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada, 2010 S.C.C. 33.

The focus of the policy interpretation should first and foremost be on the language of the policy itself. Justice Rothstein, for the Supreme Court of Canada, carefully reviewed the terms of the insurance policy. I think this case helpfully emphasizes and reiterates the principle that the terms of the insurance contract itself must be carefully reviewed. Not all insurance policies are the same and it is important for an insurer or coverage counsel to carefully review the terms of the policy. The Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized that the duty to defend must be determined on the terms of the insurance policy.

Fraudulent Car Accidents

2010-10-04T09:08:00.000-04:00

In today's Globe and Mail (October 4, 2010) it is reported that the Insurance Bureau of Canada is warning about a "concerning trend" of insurance fraud.

"There has been a rise in crashes that are orchestrated to claim lucrative no-fault insurance payouts and, to avoid detection, perpetrators are increasingly involving innocent drivers in their pre-planned collisions."

According to the article, "Toronto is the hotbed, with organized crime being linked to several staged accidents. Insurance industry investigators involved in a recent probe, dubbed Project 92, say they’ve identified more than 40 staged car accidents carried out by one particular crime ring alone, 17 of which have already been criminally investigated. Police have laid 291 charges against 39 individuals in the sting, 20 of whom have been convicted."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/insurers-beware-national-watchdog-raises-alarm-for-fraud/article1740676/

Compelling Attendance at a Future Care IME

2010-09-22T20:00:00.000-04:00

Here is a useful case in compelling a plaintiff to attend an IME with an occupational therapist.

Moore v. Wakim, 2010 ONSC 1991 (CanLii)

The defendant sought to compel the plaintiff to attend a Future Care Cost Assessment with an occupational therapist. The plaintiff had already undergone an orthopedic IME and a psychiatric IME.

Justice Howden ordered the assessment. The plaintiff had served a Future Care Cost report alleging attendant care potentially exceeding $2,000,000. Justice Howden held that the court has inherent jurisdiction to exercise its discretion in ordering assessments and it is not necessary to show that the assessment is a "diagnostic aid". There is a line of cases which stand for the principle that an assessment by someone who is not a health practitioner (such as an occupational therapist) must be necessary as a diagnostic aid to assist a health practitioner complete his or her report. Justice Howden accepted that the report was vital to the final result in the case since future care was a principal issue.

Cases such as Moore are helpful in obtaining reports to respond to the plaintiff. Such reports can be ordered under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act as "diagnostic aids", but may also be ordered pursuant to the Court's inherent discretion.

Accident Benefits: Application Forms Not Needed

2010-09-15T20:00:00.002-04:00

The following blog entry was contributed by Alexandra Lacko, articling student. She will be making regular contributions to our blog in the coming weeks.

In ING Insurance Co. of Canada v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, [2010] O.J. No. 3549 (C.A.), the Court of Appeal for Ontario recently answered a question on what triggers an insurance company’s obligation to pay accident benefits.

The question answered in this case was whether forms completed by a chiropractor who treated the claimants and sent the forms to ING, amount to “completed applications for benefits”, thereby triggering ING’s obligation to pay benefits.

J.A. Gillese held that “an application for accident benefits need not be on a certain form in order to be valid - it need only provide sufficient particulars to reasonably assist the insurer with processing the application, identifying the benefits to which the applicant may be entitled, and assessing the claim.” She further stated that the arbitrator was correct to find that ING had failed to take reasonable steps to obtain the necessary additional information from the claimants.

The four claimants were injured in a motor vehicle accident and were all treated by the same chiropractor for treatment of their injuries. The chiropractor forwarded the four forms to ING because she said she had seen ING’s contact information in her file and wanted to receive payment for the services she had provided to the claimants.

The forms indicated they were accident benefit claims and provided a claim number, policy number and the date of the accident. Each claimant’s full name, address, telephone number, gender and birth date was filled out.

ING tried to contact the claimants based on the information in the forms and found that the telephone number was out of service. ING received a cell phone number for one of the claimants from the doctor. The claimant was reached briefly but did not call ING back. As well, an ING adjuster sent letters to each of the claimants, but all of the letters were sent to one address which was no longer the address of any of the claimants. ING did not receive responses to any of its letters, and ING was not contacted by any of the claimants. The claimants did not send ING applications for accident benefits in OCF-1 Forms. ING closed the file for the four claimants on July 20, 2007.

On July 25, 2007, TD opened accident benefit claims files for the claimants and received four OCF-1 Forms from the claimants’ authorized representative. ING and TD disagreed about which had been the first insurer to receive a completed application for accident benefits within the meaning of s. 2 of O. Reg. 283/95 to the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8.

The matter went to arbitration to be determined, in which the arbitrator held that ING was responsible for the payment of benefits because the forms from the chiropractor constituted a “completed application for benefits”. ING’s application to the Superior Court was dismissed. The Court of Appeal also dismissed the appeal.

Mandatory Mediation in Motor Vehicle Tort Claims

2010-09-08T08:54:00.016-04:00

The Court of Appeal for Ontario has recently held that the refusal of an insurer to mediate a motor vehicle tort claim should attract cost consequences, per subsections 258.6(1) and (2) of the Insurance Act. See Keam v. Caddey, 2010 ONCA 565.

Significantly, the insurer had refused to mediate on the basis that it was of the opinion that the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the threshold test under the Insurance Act. Also significant was the fact that the Court of Appeal said that the offer to settle made by the insurer prior to trial, although a low offer of just $17,500, was an acceptance by the insurer that there was a potential claim to litigate - and therefore mediate.

The consequence of this decision might be to limit offers to settle in cases where insurers would otherwise make a low offer to settle in order to avoid the costs of a trial, especially where threshold is an issue. The other consequence, of course, is that insurers now will have to undertake the expense of mediation even where there is little or no chance of reaching a settlement.

The facts of the case are: After examinations for discovery, plaintiff's counsel wrote counsel for the insurer asking if they could mediate the claim pursuant to s. 258.6 of the Insurance Act. The insurer ignored the first letter. Plaintiff's counsel wrote again. In both letters plaintiff's counsel referred to costs consequences following trial if the insurer failed to participate. The insurer then responded that it would not mediate because it did not think the plaintiff's injuries met threshold. A year later, the insurer made an offer to settle for $17,500 plus interest and costs. The plaintiff won the trial and plaintiff's counsel sought substantial indemnity costs against the insurer for the failure to mediate, which the trial judge refused.

The Court of Appeal, however, found that the insurer had failed to comply with its statutory obligation to mediate per s. 258.6. The appropriate costs consequences were a "significant remedial penalty" in the amount of $40,000 in addition to the costs already awarded by the trial judge for the usual partial indemnity costs award.

Employee or independent contractor?

2010-09-01T14:00:00.001-04:00

Ligocki v. Allianz Insurance Company of Canada (2010), 100 O.R. (3d) 624 (S.C.J.)

The issue on this motion was whether the plaintiff was an employee or an independent contractor for the purpose of calculating IRBs.

Prior to the motor vehicle accident the plaintiff worked as a personal support worker for an elderly man, Mr. Deluca. Although he had initially been employed by the Victorian Order of Nurses, when it discontinued services, the plaintiff entered into an oral agreement to continue working for Mr. Deluca. The plaintiff conducted himself as if he was an independent contractor by issuing invoices and identified himself as self-employed to the accident benefits adjuster.

The Court held that despite the plaintiff's self-identification as an independent contractor, the facts indicated he was an employee, since he did not provide supplies or equipment, reported to Deluca, and did not undertake any financial risk.

One would have thought that the clear, repeated assertion by the plaintiff that he was an independent contractor would have been determinative of the issue. This decision seems to bring increased uncertainty into this area. It remains to be seen whether the decision will be appealed.

No obligation to seek clarification of a non-party witness

2010-08-25T21:51:00.002-04:00

Arunasalam v. Guglietti Estate, [2010] O.J. No. 3303 (S.C.J.)

The question to be answered in this motion with respect to refusals on examination for discovery was this: when counsel provides a summary of the anticipated evidence of a witness, is counsel required to seek clarification or further information from that witness?

Master Short held that although counsel must provide a summary of the substance of the evidence of a non-party witness, that obligation does not extend to obtaining further particulars and clarification. If the non-party witness is unwilling to provide clarification or further information to counsel opposite, it may be appropriate to bring a motion under Rule 31.10 in order to compel discovery of the non-party.

The Duty to Defend

2010-08-19T17:22:00.002-04:00

Cadillac Fairview Corp v. Olympia Sanitation Products Inc., [2010] O.J. No. 3306 (S.C.J.)

In the context of slip and fall actions, there is often both an owner/occupier of a property as well as a company hired to maintain the premises. Frequently there is a dispute over whether the contract between the two entities requires the contractor to assume the defence of its principal.

In this decision, the main action arose out of an alleged slip and fall occurring at the Promenade Mall. Cadillac Fairview hired Olympia as part of a cleaning contract in which Olympia agreed to insure and indemnify Cadillac Fairview for any losses arising out of Olympia’s contractual responsibilities. The incident report completed after the fall described that the plaintiff had fallen over something and described the cause of the injury as a “trip and fall” as opposed to a “slip and fall”. Some of the allegations in the Statement of Claim involved allegations of improper design and disrepair of the accident location.

Justice DiTomaso held that Olympia was not required to assume the defence and indemnity of Cadillac Fairview. The Riocan case was distinguished in the circumstances as there were independent allegations of negligence beyond the scope of Olympia’s cleaning contract. In Riocan, the Court held that the true nature of the plaintiff’s allegations fell within the scope of the hold harmless clause, so the contractor was obliged to defend. Justice DiTomaso in this case was unable to determine one particular claim that fell within coverage captured the true essence of the action, and further, it was possible that the plaintiff was injured in a way that was totally unconnected to Olympia’s responsibilities.

This case shows the complicated nature of the duty to defend and indemnify. Cases are determined on the specific facts and allegations made in the Statement of Claim in addition to the contract between the parties. Generally, where there is some allegation of independent negligence plead by the plaintiff, the independent contractor will not be required to assume the defence and indemnify its principal.

Definition of "Struck by" or "Hit by" in Auto Insurance

2010-08-04T10:10:00.000-04:00

The Court of Appeal for Ontario has decided that coverage under one's own policy for being "struck by" or "hit by" an unidentified automobile includes walking into an unnoticed steel pole protruding from a parked truck. Lewis v. Economical Insurance Group, [2010] O.J. No. 3158 (C.A.).

The facts are described as follows: "On a spring day in 2003, Bonnie Lewis walked out of a variety store and struck her head on a steel pole protruding from a truck parked the wrong way on the street in front of the store. The pole was unmarked, grey and nearly invisible. Ms. Lewis did not see the pole until she hit it. The pole struck her above her right eye near her temple. She fell to the ground, unconscious. She suffered a serious head injury, which has left her cognitively impaired."

Since the truck could not be identified, Ms. Lewis sued her own insurance company for damages for personal injuries. Both her automobile policy and the OPCF Family Protection Endorsement, which was additional insurance she had purchased, provided coverage for personal injuries resulting from an accident involving an unidentified or uninsured automobile. As Ms. Lewis was not an occupant of an automobile when she was injured, she was entitled to coverage only if she was "struck by" or "hit by" an unidentified automobile.

A motions judge concluded that Ms. Lewis was not "struck" or "hit by" the truck, or the pole that protruded from it, because the truck was not moving at the time. Instead, it was Ms. Lewis who struck or hit the pole.

The Court of Appeal concluded otherwise and finds that she is entitled to coverage.

Laskin J.A. added that "my interpretation of these words [struck or hit by] would not open the floodgates to injury claims by persons who walk into unidentified parked cars. This is a case about coverage, not liability or negligence. If the owner or driver of a parked car was not negligent, the claimant would have no legal entitlement to damages."

Whether the plaintiff is now entitled to damages "depends on her being able to prove that the unidentified owner or driver of the truck was negligent."

It seems that the Court is saying that if the plaintiff is not entitled to damages then it should be determined on the issue of negligence and not coverage. Coverage should be interpreted broadly whereas negligence must be proven strictly.

Unidentified Vehicle: The Corroborating Evidence Rule

2010-07-27T09:06:00.002-04:00

Is a passenger in an insured's motor vehicle an "independent witness" who can corroborate the insured's evidence concerning the involvement of an unidentified motorist for the purposes of the OPCF 44R Family Protection Endorsement? Is the passenger an "independent witness" if the passenger has also sued the insurer under the unidentified coverage provisions and therefore has an interest in the outcome?

D.A. Wilson J. recently said yes to these questions in Pepe v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., [2010] O.J. No. 2138 (S.C.J.).

Sections 1.5(c) and 1.5(d)(i) of the OPCF 44R, known as the Family Protection Endorsement, read as follows:

(c) where an eligible claimant alleges that both the owner and driver of an automobile referred to in clause 1.5(b) cannot be determined, the eligible claimant's own evidence of the involvement of such automobile must be corroborated by other material evidence; and

(d) "other material evidence" for the purposes of this section means (i) independent witness evidence, other than evidence of a spouse ... or a dependent relative ...; or (ii) physical evidence indicating the involvement of an unidentified automobile..

Wilson J. found that: "It is clear that the intention of this section is to limit the ability of individuals to make claims against their OPCF 44R policies for claims involving unidentified vehicles unless there is independent evidence to corroborate the involvement of a vehicle whose driver or owner cannot be ascertained. Further, the individual who corroborates the evidence of the claimant cannot be the spouse or a dependant of the claimant." (para. 10)

In the instance before Wilson J., the independent witness was a passenger in the plaintiff's vehicle and a girlfriend at the time of the accident but not at the time of the motion. Wilson J. concluded that this witness did not fit into the narrow class of persons excluded, namely a spouse or relative, and therefore she was an independent witness who could provide corroborating evidence.

It would seem that allowing a passenger, who has also sued the insurer under the unidentified coverage provisions and therefore has an interest in the outcome, to be the witness required under the Endorsement, defeats the intent of having "independent" corroborating evidence. On the other hand, it seems a correct finding on a plain and narrowly construed interpretation of the Endorsement's wording.

Are SABS assessors "experts"?

2010-07-22T15:03:00.006-04:00

Those of you defending accident benefits actions may wish to review this case before your next discovery.

Babakar v. Brown (2010), 100 O.R. (3d) 191 (Div. Ct.)

The defendant insurer had the plaintiff assessed pursuant to s. 42 of the SABS to determine whether he continued to be entitled to benefits. Based on these reports, the insurer terminated benefits and the plaintiff brought an action against the insurer. During examination for discovery, the claims examiner refused to answer certain questions about the s. 42 reports on the basis that they constituted cross-examination of expert witnesses, beyond the permissible limits of r. 31.06(3).

The master ordered the questions answered and an appeal to the Superior Court was dismissed on the basis that the experts retained by the insurer were not "experts" within the meaning of r. 31.06(3).

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal. The experts were chosen by the insurer to help it make a determination under the SABS and as such, they were engaged by or on behalf of a party being examined in the action in relation to a matter in issue in the action. The discoverability of their evidence is therefore governed by r. 31.06(3).

Discovery by Videoconference

2010-07-14T08:10:00.001-04:00

Midland Resources Holdings Ltd. v. Sharif (2010), 99 O.R. (3d) 550 (S.C.J.).

In this case, the plaintiff was living in Moscow and had a medical condition and his physician recommended against lengthy airplane trips. He brought a motion seeking to be examined for discovery by videoconference.

Justice Newbould granted the motion and refused to follow a prior Master's decision that held that video conferencing should be used rarely. The Court held that given the high costs of modern litigation, videoconferencing should be encouraged. The Order was granted pursuant to r. 34.07(1)(f).

It seems that in modern litigation it is increasingly common for parties to be outside of Ontario. Videoconferencing can be useful in such cases to help decrease some of the costs in litigation, which accords with the new emphasis on proportionality and access to justice.

Audiotaping Independent Medical Examinations

2010-07-07T12:00:00.005-04:00

In Adams v. Cook (2010), 100 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), the defendant sought an independent medical examination of the plaintiff by a specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation. The plaintiff would consent only if the examination was audio recorded. In the initial motion, plaintiff's counsel swore an affidavit alleging there was a systemic bias by those conducting IMEs. He made no allegations against the specific specialist selected by the defendant. The motions judge refused to order the IME without audiotape and the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal. The defendant then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. In order to show that audio or video recording is necessary, there must be something more than an allegation of general bias among doctors who perform IMEs; there has to be something specific to the case.

The Court was invited to opine on whether there should be routine recording of IMEs in all cases; however, it declined to do so, preferring to leave this issue for the Rules Committee.

Independent medical examinations seem to be an area ripe for disputes between plaintiffs and defendants. The Court of Appeal's decision is one that may assist the defence in opposing requests to record the examination, although it seems that the Court of Appeal has left the door open for plaintiffs to argue for recording of IMEs in specific cases.

More on Crinson v. Toronto, 2010 ONCA 44.

2010-06-23T12:54:00.001-04:00

Two days ago I blogged on a comment left from an Indian lawyer to my blog of February 27, 2010.

That discussion revolved around the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Crinson v. Toronto (City), 2010 ONCA 44.

The case has received attention in an article by Stuart Huxley, legal counsel, City of Ottawa, in a case comment printed in the Municipal Liability Risk Management journal, (2009-10) 11 Mun. L.R. Mgt. (Volume 11, Number 4).

In that article, Mr. Huxley helpfully reviews the history of the Court of Appeal decision and noted that the trial judge had found that the plaintiff was in the hospital for five days after the trip and fall, which included surgery, and during that period was on morphine and Tylenol. The plaintiff was drowsy and "out of it". Following his discharge from the hospital, the plaintiff took Percocets for two weeks. Despite this medication, the trial judge held that the plaintiff was not so incapacitated that he was unable to arrange for the required notice to be given to the municipality. Thus the plaintiff's claim was held to be statute barred by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal reversed. The Court of Appeal held that there was ample evidence to support "reasonable excuse".

Mr. Huxley concludes his article with the realistic comment that failture to give notice as required by the Municipal Act, 2001 months after an accident will require a municipality to consider whether to push the notice defence. Questions that municipalities will continue to face will be whether or how a municipality should defend such actions or whether they should just concede and pay.

Benefit of the Doubt has to be given to the Victim

2010-06-21T12:41:00.000-04:00

It is not often we get comments on our blog. It is even rarer when we get a comment from someone who is outside Ontario, much less Canada. So it was good to read the comment from Ms Sindhu Yadav of Choir de Law Pvt. Ltd, India (and who I presume to be a colleague lawyer), to my February 27, 2010, blog on the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Crinson v. Toronto (City), 2010 ONCA 44.

The title I gave to that blog entry was "Ignorance of the Law can be a Reasonable Excuse", which perhaps showed my concern with the Court of Appeal's decision. However, the comment from Ms Sindhu Yadav of India was, "The decision of Court of Appeal is highly welcome. In such cases the maxim "Ignorance of law is no excuse" is defeated. Benefit of doubt has to be given to the victim."

That is an interesting comment. Please keep the comments coming...

Rule 31.05.01 - Extending the Seven Hour Discovery Rule

2010-06-16T12:00:00.001-04:00

Those of you interested in the interpretation of the new rule 31.05.01, which provides a seven hour total limit on discovery, may wish to review Osprey Capital Partners v. Gennium Pharma Inc., [2010] O.J. No. 1721 (S.C.J).

Master Glustein granted leave to the plaintiff to exceed the seven hour limit and permitted it seven hours for each defendant.

Some of the factors considered were:

1. The pleadings claimed $1.5 million in damages;
2. A review of the pleadings revealed complex issues of fact and law; and
3. There would be unfairness if the defendants each had seven hours to examine the plaintiff (for a total of 21 hours) and the plaintiff was limited to seven, or approximately two hours for each defendant.

Master Glustein also held that it is not necessary for counsel to attempt examinations prior to bringing a motion to extend time. In addition, the Master did not agree that counsel must identify key documents and issues in the discovery as part of the discovery plan.

If a City is going to fix a sidewalk, it has to do a good job

2010-06-12T16:10:00.005-04:00

The Ontario Court of Appeal says that the City of Burlington was partly liable for a woman's broken leg because the City's sidewalk allowed for the pooling of liquid on the sidewalk which caused her to slip and fall. Cartner v. Burlington (City), 2010 ONCA 407.

The City had tried to fix the cement sidewalk by grinding down a trip ledge. In the process, the City reversed the drainage of water and liquids from the sidewalk. After the grinding of the sidewalk, water and liquids pooled in a corner of the sidewalk.

The Court of Appeal also said the correct test is the "but for" test, namely that "but for" the pooling of water caused by the reversed drainage, caused by the grinding down of the trip ledge, the plaintiff would not have fallen. The City should have replaced the concrete slab instead of grinding it down since this caused a greater or additional problem.

According to the Court of Appeal, the trial judge was correct in concluding that the neligence of the City was a "cause" and that it did not have to be the only "cause" of the plaintiff's injury.

I wonder if the "but for" test, however, was the correct test in this instance? It seems to me it could also be said that the accident would not have occurred "but for" the plaintiff walking along the sidewalk and not stepping over the pooled liquid, yet there is no mention in the judgment about contributory negligence. Doesn't this make the City an insurer for those who have trouble stepping over defects on its sidewalk? Is that expense the City taxpayers should have to bear?

Misfeasance in Public Office

2010-06-09T00:02:00.002-04:00

St. Elizabeth Home Society v. Hamilton (City), [2010] O.J. No.1515 (C.A.)

This was an Appeal by the St. Elizabeth Home Society of the dismissal of its action against the City of Hamilton and the Regional Municipality of Hamilton Wentworth.

St. Elizabeth Home Society operated a retirement home in Hamilton. In early 1994, the City received letters alleging substandard care of residents at the home. These letters prompted a review of the Society’s practices by an independent consultant, who delivered a report in December 2004 strongly criticizing the health care practices and management style of the operators of the home. Shortly after the report was issued, the Municipality issued an Order to Comply against the Society alleging that it had violated a Municipal by-law with respect to admission of residents, nursing care, reports and records, and food. A City counselor leaked the Order to Comply to local newspapers, which in turn published many sensational stories about the home.

The primary issue in this appeal was whether the judge erred in dismissing the claim with respect to misfeasance in public office.

The trial judge held that there was no intention by Municipal employees to act beyond their powers and abuse their authority, there was no evidence that the defendants were aware their conduct was unlawful and likely to harm the plaintiff, and there was no knowledge by any of the defendants that the issuance of the Order to Comply would do anything other than benefit the plaintiff in improving health care to the residents. Their intent was not to harm the home but to assist it in its operation. The Court of Appeal confirmed the trial judge's decision.

In addition, the Court of Appeal held that the appeal with respect to negligence must fail because neither Municipality owed a duty of care to the Society; their duty was a public law duty to the residents of the home, not to the operator.

This case is useful in those defending Municipal and public authorities claims, in that it confirms that the duty is to the public at large, as well as the elements of misfeasance in public office.

Facebook in Litigation

2010-06-02T12:30:00.002-04:00

Is the pendulum swinging back away from the use of Facebook in litigation?

In Schuster v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Co. of Canada, [2009] O.J. No. 4518 (S.C.J.), the defendants sought an ex parte Order for preservation of the plaintiff's Facebook account, followed by a motion for production.

Justice Price refused to make a preservation Order, holding that the defendant had not shown that it would suffer irreparable harm if the Order was not granted. Justice Price assumed that if the plaintiff's Facebook page contained relevant documents it would have been listed in her Affidavit of Documents. With respect, given the relatively recent development of Facebook, I would suggest that many counsel simply do not consider whether their clients have Facebook accounts, and, if so, whether there are relevant documents to be produced. Justice Price held that the mere nature of Facebook as a social networking platform is not evidence that it contains relevant information.

Facebook motions have become a useful tool for defence counsel in many cases and courts were supportive of them in several decisions; however, this decision could signal that courts are no longer as willing to make orders for production as they had been in the past.

Nova Scotia's cap on damages stands

2010-05-28T12:21:00.002-04:00

You may recall our earlier post on the decision of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal to uphold Nova Scotia's cap of $2,500 for general damages for "minor" injuries.

The Supreme Court has refused leave to appeal, so the cap remains.

The decision is MacDonald v. Attorney General of Nova Scotia.

Changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act

2010-05-26T12:00:00.000-04:00

On July 1st, 2010, the Occupational Health and Safety Act will be amended. The Act can be found on the E-Laws website at http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90o01_e.htm.

The changes are primarily directed towards workplace violence and harassment prevention and require employers to prepare policies with respect to workplace violence and harassment and review the policies.

Each employer may wish to review the new changes to ensure compliance.

Institutional Liability for Sexual Abuse

2010-05-19T12:00:00.000-04:00

Reference Re: Broome v. Prince Edward Island, [2010] S.C.C. 11

The Supreme Court of Canada recently commented on a variety of issues relating to whether an institution is liable for historical sexual abuse.

In this case, the plaintiffs alleged physical and sexual abuse as children while they resided in a privately owned and managed children’s home. The court considered 4 issues:

1. Did the province owe a duty of care by virtue of the common law, its statutory authority and responsibility, or the doctrine of parens patriae?
2. Did the province owe a non-delegable duty?
3. Was the province vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of the trustees, staff or volunteers working in the home?
4. Did the province owe a fiduciary duty to the residents in the home?

The court held that there was not sufficient proximity to impose a duty of care. Although the governing legislation set out that the director shall “inspect or direct and supervise the inspection of any institution established for the care and protection of children or place where a child is placed pursuant to the provisions of this act”, this was insufficient to impose a duty of care. In addition, the mere fact that the province provided some funding indirectly in the form of grants was not enough to create a sufficient relationship of proximity between the province and the children.

The court also held that the province did not owe a non-delegable duty of care to the residents of the home. The home was not a children’s aide society, the children were not foster children or wards of the province, and the legislation created no role for the province in the operation of the home or for the care of the residents.

In terms of vicarious liability, the court rejected the plaintiffs' submission that the province exercised sufficient control over the home through legislative authority and statutory duties to justify the imposition of vicarious liability. The court noted that legislative authority is not enough to impose vicarious liability as if it were, “a province would be vicariously liable for every act committed in a field within its legislative authority”.

Finally, the court held that there was no fiduciary duty owed by the province to the children as there was no evidentiary basis to support an inference that the province directed or had the authority to direct the operation of the home. There were no facts that would have given rise to a fiduciary relationship.

This decision, when read in conjunction with decisions such as KLB v. British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 403, is important in the defence of institutions for cases involving sexual abuse. It appears from this decision that something more than just legislation, such as a direct role in supervising children, is required in order to impose liability.

The Duty to Defend in a Homeowner's Policy

2010-05-10T11:49:00.000-04:00

McKinnon J. of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently released a decision arising from a Rule 21 motion for determination of a question of law, namely whether an insurer owes a duty to defend homeowners arising out of a homeowner's insurance policy. The claim against the homeowners arose after they sold their house. The purchasers alleged misrepresentation on the part of the homeowners for failing to disclose the condition of the property. Poplawski v. McGrimmon, [2010] O.J. No. 33.

What I found interesting in this decision is the very helpful overview of the law on an insurer's duty to defend. Here are a few paragraphs from this overview:

There is a three step process to determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend its insured:
(a) Are the plaintiff's legal allegations properly pleaded?
(b) Are any claims entirely derivative in nature?
(c) Do any of the properly, pleaded non-derivative claims potentially trigger the insurer's duty to defend?

In considering whether a plaintiff's allegations are properly pleaded, courts are not bound by the legal labels chosen by the plaintiff. When ascertaining the scope of the duty to defend, a court must look beyond the choice of labels and examine the substance of the allegations contained in the pleadings. This does not involve deciding whether the claims have merit: the court need only decide, based on the pleadings, the true nature of the claims. A plaintiff cannot change negligence into an intentional tort simply through the choice of words.

In considering whether any of the claims potentially trigger the insurer's duty to defend, where the allegations of negligence constitute a separate tort and are not an attempt to "dress" intentional conduct as negligence, the insurer will be under a duty to defend: see Godonoaga (Litigation guardian of) v. Khatambakhsh, [2000] O.J. No. 2172 (C.A.) at paras. 28 and 32.

If there is any uncertainty as to whether a claim falls within the applicant's policy coverage, the uncertainty must be resolved in favour of the insured: see Co-Operators General Insurance Co. v. Murray, [2007] O.J. No. 2329 (S.C.J.) at para. 6.

7 Hour Discovery Rule Interpreted

2010-05-03T10:00:00.000-04:00

Justice Templeton has recently addressed the new so-called "7 Hour Rule" that limits examinations for discovery, J. & P. Leveque Bros. v. Ontario , 2010 ONSC 2312.

The issue on the motion was whether leave should be granted to the plaintiff to conduct an examination for discovery of the defendants for a period of time in excess of seven hours.

At paragraph 16 of her decision, Templeton J. writes: The interests of justice do not require that the concept of effective representation trump the concept of cost-efficient and/or expeditious justice or vice versa; but they do require that these factors be balanced both jointly and severally by all participants in the process.

She also adds at paragraph 20: I am also of the view that in circumstances in which the time limit agreed upon in the Discovery Plan has expired and counsel is at a crucial point in his/her examination on an issue central or germane to the case, flexibility ought to be brought to bear and that further time to a maximum of one hour to continue and conclude the examination would not be unreasonable in the circumstances.

At a paragraph 21: In cases involving multiple parties, I would expect the excess of one hour to be deducted from the time available for that same party to examine another party to the litigation. In other words, to ensure that effective and cost-efficient justice is realized, counsel must adhere to their agreement with respect to the total length of the examinations but where there is more than one party, a leeway of one hour past the allotted time for the examination of one of the parties would not be unreasonable provided it is recovered from the examination of another party. This
flexibility allows counsel to be effective and to prioritize but at the same time cost-efficient in
the overall process.

In conclusion she granted the plaintiff 19 hours to conduct the examination for discovery since it was a multi-party action involving a number of different issues.

Court Appeal Rules Summary Judgment is not available in Small Claims Court

2010-04-21T16:55:00.004-04:00

Van de Vrande vs. Butkowsky, [2010] O.J. No. 1239 (C.A.)

The Court of Appeal has held that summary judgment is not available in Small Claims Court, clarifying an area where there were two separate lines of case law.

In this case, the defendant was retained to perform an assessment in the context of a custody dispute between the plaintiff and his spouse. The plaintiff alleged that instead of simply conducting and submitting an assessment, the defendant took on an additional role of mediator in the dispute. The defendant brought a motion seeking summary judgment and the court granted the motion pursuant to Rules 1.03 (2) and 12.02 of the Small Claims Court Rules, on the basis that in his capacity as a court appointed assessor, the defendant was immune from suit pursuant to the doctrine of expert witness immunity. The deputy judge also found that the action had been commenced outside of the applicable limitation period.

The Court of Appeal held that the absence of a summary judgment procedure in the Small Claims Court Rule is not a gap but rather a deliberate omission. It is not up to the court to read in such provision, since Rule 12.02 specifically addresses the ability to bring a motion similar to that contemplated by Rules 20, 21 & 76 of Rules of Civil Procedure. The court held that Rule 12 is similar to a Rule 21 motion, although it is worded more broadly and does not have the same prohibition on filing affidavit evidence. It involves an analysis of whether a reasonable cause of action has been disclosed or whether the proceeding should be ended at an early stage because its continuation would be inflammatory, a waste of time or a nuisance.

Although the court has now clarified that summary judgment is not available in Small Claims Court, Rule 12 remains a valuable tool that can assist in disposing of cases that are without merit without the need to progress to a full blown trial.

Amendments to MMS

2010-04-15T12:36:00.000-04:00

Final comment from Jennifer Stirton on the new Ontario Municipal Maintenance Standards:

7. Inspection for Sidewalk Discontinuity

The MMS now require annual inspections of sidewalks to check for surface discontinuities. There was no previous annual inspection requirement. In addition, municipalities are now required to treat sidewalk surface discontinuities that exceed two centimetres within 14 days after becoming aware of the fact. The constructive knowledge provision discussed above will also apply. Treating a surface discontinuity on a sidewalk involves taking reasonable measures to protect users of the sidewalk from it, including permanent or temporary repairs, alerting users’ attention to it or preventing access to the area of discontinuity.

Amendments to MMS

2010-04-13T12:05:00.000-04:00

More from Jennifer Stirton on the new Municipal Maintenance Standards:

6. Expanded Sign Inspections

The MMS previously required road sign repairs where signs were illegible, improperly oriented or missing. There is now an additional requirement to repair road signs that are obscured. There is also a new requirement to conduct annual inspections of road signs to ensure that they meet the retro-reflectivity requirements of the Ontario Traffic Manual.

Amendments to MMS

2010-04-08T12:30:00.001-04:00

More comments on the new Minimum Maintenance Standards, by Jennifer Stirton.

4. Slush Included in Snow Accumulation

The MMS have also been criticized for failing to address slushy road conditions.[1] The MMS now provide that snow accumulation on a road includes new fallen snow, wind-blown snow and slush. Snow clearing standards are triggered when snow accumulation reaches a prescribed depth.

[1] See Thornhill (Litigation Guardian of) v. Shadid, [2008] O.J. No. 372 at paras. 94-97 (S.C.J.). Note that although it was argued by counsel, the trial judge did not agree that the failure to address slush in the MMS was a gap in the regulation.

5. Annual Inspection of Luminaires

The MMS now provide for annual inspections of all luminaires to ensure that they are functioning. There was no previous inspection requirement.

Amendments to MMS

2010-04-06T12:28:00.000-04:00

More commentary on the recent amendments to the MMS, by Jennifer Stirton.

3. Additional Winter Patrolling Requirements

One of the criticisms of the MMS was that the patrolling requirements were inadequate to respond to winter road conditions.[1] The MMS now provide that during the winter maintenance season, municipalities must conduct the routine patrols that were previously required but must also patrol highways that are representative of its highways, as necessary, for snow and ice conditions. The standard also allows patrolling to be done by patrollers or by winter maintenance operators. As neither “representative” nor “as necessary” are defined terms and, we expect to see claims challenging municipal decisions about representative highways and necessary patrol frequencies.

[1] See Thornhill (Litigation Guardian of) v. Shadid, [2008] O.J. No. 372 at paras. 98-103 (S.C.J.).

Amendments to MMS

2010-04-01T12:24:00.001-04:00

More commentary on the recent amendments to the MMS, by Jennifer Stirton.

2. Application of MMS Not Restricted to Motor Vehicles

The MMS previously provided that they applied only in respect of motor vehicles using highways. This provision has been repealed, which suggests that the MMS now apply to pedestrians and bicycles using highways. This may be a response to recent case law which held that where roads are kept in a reasonable state of repair for vehicular traffic, which can include MMS compliance, a municipality may not be liable to pedestrians injured while walking on the road surface. Holmes v. Kingston (City), [2009] O.J. No. 1838 (S.C.J.).

Amendments to the Municipal Minimum Maintenance Standards

2010-03-31T12:20:00.003-04:00

The Minimum Maintenance Standards under the Municipal Act, 2001 were amended by Ontario Regulation 23/10, which came into effect on February 18, 2010. Several of the amendments are significant and will require municipalities to review their maintenance practices to ensure that the standards are met.

Over the next several blog entries, we will provide comments on the most significant changes to the Minimum Maintenance Standards. These comments were authored by Jennifer Stirton of our office.

Here is the first:

1. Constructive Knowledge of Facts
Many maintenance requirements in the MMS apply when a municipality becomes aware of a particular fact, such as a minimum snow accumulation, icy road conditions or a missing road sign. The MMS now provide that a municipality is deemed to be aware of a fact if the circumstances are such that the municipality ought reasonably to be aware of the fact.

Court to use a contextual approach in deciding whether to set aside a dismissal order

2010-03-29T12:00:00.000-04:00

Finlay v. Van Paassen 2010 ONCA 204 (C.A.)

In this motor vehicle accident which occurred in October 2003, the Statement of Claim was issued in October 2004 and pleadings and discoveries were completed by September 2005. In January 2007 the registrar issued a Status Notice indicating that the action would be dismissed unless it was set down for trial within 90 days. Unfortunately, the Status Notice was not sent to the plaintiff. On April 30, 2007, unbeknownst to the plaintiff, the registrar issued an Order dismissing the action for delay. Plaintiff’s counsel first obtained a copy of the registrar’s Order in mid May 2007; however, no action was taken to set aside the Order until 2009.

The motion’s judge refused to set aside the dismissal Order, using the 4 factors cited by the Court of Appeal in Marche D’Alimentation Denis Theriault Ltee v. Giant Tiger Stores:

1. Explanation of the litigation delay;
2. Inadvertence in missing the deadline;
3. The motion is brought promptly;
4. No prejudice to the defendant.

For the motions judge, the third factor was decisive. He held that a delay of two years in bringing the motion was not an acceptable way of dealing with the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in taking two rigid an approach to the criteria. Instead, the Court should use a contextual approach in which the Court weighs all relevant considerations to determine a just result. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the registrar’s Order.

This decision appears to make it very difficult for defence counsel to succeed in opposing a motion to set aside a registrar’s dismissal Order. The Court is concerned with not allowing an innocent client to suffer the loss of the right to proceed by reason of the inadvertence of his/her solicitor.

Graham v. Toronto, [2009] O.J. No. 4633

2010-03-23T08:43:00.002-04:00

This is a decision of A. Sosna J. of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

I think this is an interesting decision because the judge dismissed the claim against the City of Toronto even though the plaintiff had tripped and fallen over a "metal frame" left lying in the middle of the sidewalk. The claim was dismissed because the City had good record keeping which showed that it had inspected the highway (including the sidewalk) just 8 hours before the trip and fall. Therefore the City had met the standard of care required of it.

Facts: A claimant tripped and fell after stepping into the interior of a metal frame lying on the sidewalk. Apparently he saw the metal frame, stepped into it and while exiting, caught his left foot on the frame. As a result, he lost his balance and fell, suffering two broken bones in his left arm. A metal rod had to be inserted into his arm.

The Municipal Act, 2001, s. 44, governs liability. It provides that a municipality is liable for all damages sustained for failing to keep highways (which includes sidewalks) in a state of repair that is reasonable in the circumstances. It also includes a defence that a municipality is not liable if it did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to have known about the state or repair of the highway.

The City provided evidence that an inspection of the highway, including the sidewalk, had taken place approximately eight hours before the trip and fall. The City employee who conducted the inspection says that he would have immediately removed the metal frame had it been noticed. Further, there was no record of any complaint or notice given to the City about the metal frame on the sidewalk.

The trial judge held that it is a question of fact in each case whether a condition of non‑repair or hazard exists and if so, whether the municipal authorities’ response is reasonable, timely and properly executed. The judge held that the inspector had not observed the rectangular metal frame lying on the sidewalk and the accuracy and reliability of his observations were not undermined or negated during cross-examination. Therefore, despite the “tragic and unfortunate injuries to the plaintiff”, the defendant met its evidentiary burden of establishing that it had met the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001, and as such should not be held to a standard of perfection.

The trial judge then dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.

The trial judge went on to assess damages at $50,000.00 and interestingly would have assessed contributory negligence at 50%.

Court rejects argument deductible does not apply to awards of exactly $100,000

2010-03-16T12:00:00.000-04:00

Van Winckle v. Siodlowski, [2009] O.J. No. 4807 (S.C.J.).

In this motor vehicle accident case, the jury awarded the plaintiff exactly $100,000 in non-pecuniary general damages. The plaintiff made the creative argument that the deductible should not apply where the award is exactly $100,000. Section 267.5(8) provides the deductible does not apply where the amount of non-pecuniary general damages "would exceed $100,000".

The Court held that "exceed" means greater than, not greater than or equal to. The deductible applied.

The decision makes sense. If the legislative had meant "greater than or equal to" $100,000, it would have said so.

SCC: good review on law of negligence

2010-03-09T16:31:00.002-05:00

The Supreme Court of Canada has recently released unanimous reasons for judgment written by Cromwell J., Fullowka and Pinkerton’s of Canada Limited, 2010 SCC 5.

I bring this case to your attention as a helpful overview on the law of negligence in Canada.

A strike at a mine near Yellowknife in 1992 degenerated into violence when the mine decided to continue operating the mine during the strike with replacement workers. Several security guards were attacked and some striking miners set off several explosions. One striking miner planted an explosive device in the mine and a car carrying nine miners triggered this set trip wire killing them all in the explosion. The miner survivors sued the mine, the security company hired to protect the mine during the strike and the Northwest Territorial Government. They also sued the local and national union for failing to control the striking miners and for insighting the violence.

The Supreme Court of Canada very helpfully reviews the law on duty of care, standard of care, proximity and other elements of the tort of negligence. The court held that the trial judge had been correct in finding that the murdered miners were owed a duty of care but errored in finding that the requisite standard of care had not been met. Justice Cromwell held that to the extent that the judge had required the security company to ensure that the entrances were properly guarded to avoid all access to the mine, he had imposed an absolute duty on the security company and not a duty of reasonable care.

The Supreme Court of Canada also held that the trial judge had applied the wrong legal test for causation. The correct test is the “but for” test and that this case did not fall into the class of exceptional situations in which the test for causation should be relaxed to the “material contribution” test.

All in all this is a good read for the review of negligence principles including duty and standard of care, foreseeability, proximity and residual policy considerations.