Monthly Archives: February 2013

C.A. Says Statutory Conditions Don’t Apply to Uninsured Auto Coverage

Last Friday, the Court of Appeal ruled that the statutory conditions in a standard automobile policy do not apply to the uninsured automobile coverage that is mandated by s. 265 of the Insurance Act. In Bruinsma v. Cresswell, the plaintiff was … Continue reading

Posted in Auto, Insurance News, Uninsured or Underinsured | 1 Comment

Superior Court Judge Strikes Down Limitation Period in Underinsured Endorsement

Schmitz v Lombard In a recent decision, Mr. Justice Martin James of the Superior Court has ruled that the limitation period contained in s. 17 of the underinsured automobile endorsement, OPCF 44R “cannot operate as a limitation defence and that … Continue reading

Posted in Auto, Discoverability, Insurance News, Limitation Periods | 1 Comment

Divisional Court Says Partial Indemnity Costs To Be Calculated On Basis of Costs Subcommittee’s Rates, Not Counsel’s Actual Rates

UPDATE: Just a few days after the decision in Geographic Resources was released, Regional Senior Justice Charles T. Hackland has handed down his costs ruling in the widely-publicized case of Guergis v. Novak et al.  Justice Hackland too endorsed the Mantella principle (and … Continue reading

Posted in Costs | Leave a comment

Threshold Motion Results in Dismissal of Action (But Jury Awards $58,000.00 for Loss of Competitive Advantage)

Here’s a somewhat puzzling couple of decisions. In Jennings v. Latendresse, 2012 ONSC 6982 (CanLII), Justice John Cavarzan heard a threshold motion after the jury in this MVA trial had retired. In the decision linked to in the previous sentence, he … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment