Monthly Archives: February 2013

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

Posted on February 24, 2013 by Stephen Cavanagh

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 | Comments Off on C.A. Says Statutory Conditions Don’t Apply to Uninsured Auto Coverage

Superior Court Judge Strikes Down Limitation Period in Underinsured Endorsement

Posted on February 22, 2013 by Stephen Cavanagh

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 | Comments Off on Superior Court Judge Strikes Down Limitation Period in Underinsured Endorsement

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

Posted on February 20, 2013 by Stephen Cavanagh

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

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

Posted on February 19, 2013 by Stephen Cavanagh

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